Appeal No. 95-1217
Application 08/039,674
The Examiner rejected claim 17 on the grounds that the
claim language that recites the "ratio of the perimeter of
each of the objects to the area of each such object" is vague
and indefinite. According to the Examiner, it is not clear
which of the objects are indicated. Claim 17 is reproduced as
follows, with emphasis added to the relevant language:
17. The computerized mine detection apparatus of claim
12, wherein:
one or more of the processing series determines a
fractal dimension of the objects, the fractal dimension being
the ratio of the perimeter of each of the objects to the area
of each such object.
Again, this rejection is reversed because a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the bounds of the
claim. They would understand that the objects referred to in
claim 17 are the objects that are being sensed in claim 12.
They would also understand that, in claim 17, the fractal
dimension of the object is determined by dividing the
perimeter of each object by the area of that object.
Finally, the Examiner rejected claim 18 under § 112, ¶ 2,
on the grounds that the term "light intensity" lacks
antecedent
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007