Appeal No. 97-0922
Application 08/314,281
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details of the positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
The examiner contends that it is unclear as to
whether or not the "means for receiving a time series x of
i
power realizations" is merely a line that carries x or
i
whether it includes means to generate x [answer-page 2].
i
Further, the examiner contends that the "means for selecting
an order z of said filter" is indefinite because the
specification discloses no apparatus for performing this
function [answer-page 2].
With regard to the requirement of the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the definiteness of claim
language is analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the
ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. See In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, , 169 USPQ 236, (CCPA 1971).
With regard to the means for receiving a time series
of power realizations, it is clear to us, from page 5 of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007