Appeal No. 97-0922
Application 08/314,281
terms of the meaning of the claimed "means for receiving..."
We merely hold that the examiner's challenge to the
definiteness of the claims in this regard is unreasonable in
view of the instant disclosure.
With regard to the claimed "means for
selecting....," again, while we find for appellant because we
hold that the filter is actually a computer for performing the
recited algorithm, and therefore, the "means for selecting..."
is an input means for inputting the data into the computer,
appellant's argument, per se, that in order to sustain the
examiner's rejection, we would need to conclude that the
artisan does not know how to vary a parameter of a filter and
that this "strains belief," [brief-page 6] is unpersuasive.
After all, the examiner's rejection was not based on the
enablement clause of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, but,
rather, on the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.
Accordingly, all that was required of appellant to overcome
the rejection was to point to the section of the disclosure
identifying the claimed "means for selecting."
The examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007