Appeal No. 96-0139
Application 08/037,683
rejection given in the Answer, which is the only art rejection
argued in the Answer: 3
Maemori 4,837,817 June 6, 1989
Kondo 5,142,272 August 25, 1992
Prior to addressing the art rejection, we will consider
the rejection under § 112, second paragraph. We note that the
rejection of claim 5 thereunder as being an improper hybrid
claim
has been mooted by the entry of the "THIRD AMENDMENT AFTER
FINAL," which replaced the phrase "is fabricated as" with
--comprises--. Hence, the § 112 rejection of claim 5 is not
repeated in the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer.
Claims 3, 4, and 7 stand rejected under the second
paragraph of § 112 as "vague and indefinite because the
Examiner cannot figure out how the microcomputer is arranged
in order to control the signal processing circuit (noting in
general, a signal processing circuit includes a gamma circuit,
color separating circuit, etc.)" (Answer at 3). This
3Appellants correctly surmise that because the
rejections given in the final Office action are not mentioned
in the Answer, they should be treated as withdrawn (Reply
Brief at 3).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007