Appeal No. 96-0122
Application No. 08/096,581
diameter (K) of the supply and take-up reels, and to the number
(u) of winding pulses generated per revolution of the supply and
take-up reels.
No references were relied on by the examiner in the
rejections.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 stand rejected under the first and second
paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based upon a non-enabling
disclosure, and for indefiniteness.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3):
The disclosure sets forth specific tape winding
and extraction steps with rotational values to be
measured during those steps. It also sets forth
specific formulae using those rotational values with
other known values to determine the total playing time
or the residual playing time. There is no disclosure
of other formulae or any other guidance for determining
these times without the two formulae disclosed.
It is the examiner’s position (Answer, page 4) that the claims
“do not recite the critical formulae disclosed in the
specification,” and that “[t]he disclosure does not enable one
skilled in the art to determine the claimed times without using
the formulae disclosed.” The examiner has additionally stated
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007