Appeal No. 96-0215
Application 07/975,908
remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from
claim 10.
Appellants argue on page 6 that it is clear how the filter
functions to decode the data to be detected. Appellants point to
the specification, page 5, lines 30-32, which disclose that the
filter is designed to extract the features of the data. Appel-
lants argue that in light of the specification, it is clear that
the filter decodes the data through feature extraction by spati-
ally modulating light which is directed to a mask encoded with
the data to be classified.
In view of the Appellants' arguments and in light of the
teaching of Appellants' disclosure as it would be interpreted by
one possessing ordinary skill in the art, we find that the
language "a filter for decoding the data to be detected" sets out
and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection on the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of the
Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to the claimed invention by the express
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007