Appeal No. 96-3212
Application 07/826,699
feed the various circuit elements in Figure 1 are well explained
in the disclosure as filed. The two examples in figures 2 and 3
show to the artisan two examples of the operation of the circuit
elements of Figure 1. It is apparent to us, and we believe to
the artisan, that the overall aim of the invention is achieved,
that is, to minimize program control from the microcomputer 16 to
control the overall circuit operation with minimal numbers and
types of signals outputted therefrom to control the external
circuitry.
Although the examiner is correct in concluding that the
noted declaration is based upon beliefs and presents conclusions
without much factual support thereto, it does add some measure of
evidence to that which we have already concluded from our
independent study of the disclosure as a whole that the subject
matter of the present claimed invention is adequately disclosed
from an artisan’s perspective within 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Finally, we note that appellants’ brief lists and discusses,
in detail in a corresponding manner to the disclosed invention,
each of the questions raised by the examiner in the final
rejection to our satisfaction.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007