Appeal No. 96-2179 Page 18
Application 07/613,466
already noted, claims depending from claims 1 and 38, in this
case claims 3-11, 14-24, 42, and 43-48, are sufficiently
indefinite to make a prior art analysis pointless. The
rejection of remaining claims 28, 30-33, 35-37, 52-57,
and 59-61 is based solely on Nappholz and Callaghan '900.
37. We have already found that Callaghan '900 teaches
the basic structure and acts of the invention with the
exception of the self-adapting function. We have also already
found that Nappholz teaches the advantages of self-adaption
with respect to a rate control parameter. We find that
Nappholz would have motivated a person having ordinary skill
in the art to modify its use of the depolarization gradient to
implement self-adapting rate control. We do not, however, see
a suggestion in the record on how this would have been
accomplished. Moreover, the combination of these references
does not suggest the specific acts of Appellants' claimed
method in itself or as implemented in programmed means.
38. Neither the examiner nor Appellants have suggested a
range of equivalent structures or acts against which we might
compare the combination. We find the disclosed acts and
corresponding means sufficiently detailed (e.g., a flow chart
covering ten pages with many branches and loops) to admit few
practical equivalents.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007