Appeal No. 95-2910
Application 08/084,337
such data transfer to complete.” This recitation is
equivalent to stating that the leadoff interval must be
greater than the time for the data transfer to complete. The
next step of original claim 1 recited that preprocessing
occurred during the leadoff interval. Since the leadoff
interval had to be greater than the time to complete
processing, original claim 1 recited that preprocessing
occurred only when the leadoff interval was greater than the
time to complete processing. The amendments to FIG. 8A and
the specification are in accord with the operation of the
invention as recited in original claim 1.
Since the originally filed claims are part of the
original application, and since we find that the objected to
amendments are supported by the originally filed claims, the
examiner’s rejection of the claims as being unsupported by the
original application is in error. Appellants have
demonstrated that the invention now being claimed is supported
by the originally filed application. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of the claims under the first paragraph
of Section 112.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007