Appeal No. 96-3244
Application No. 08/238,192
provide more details concerning the microprocessor disclosed
in the specification, and that appellants directly claim a
microprocessor. In response to the examiner’s rejections,
appellants argue (Supplemental Reply Brief (paper number 46),
page 3) that the examiner is “looking in the wrong place” when
he looks to appellants’ specification, as opposed to claim 1,
to determine what is appellants’ invention. According to
appellants, claim 1 “clearly recites that the invention is a
reset circuit in a logic circuit” (Supplemental Reply Brief,
page 3), and that “to enable making and using Appellants’
invention, it is not essential to describe the microprocessor”
(Supplemental Reply Brief, page 4) because “[a]ppellants’
specification clearly teaches Appellants’ claimed reset
circuit on pages 5-8 and illustrates specific aspects of such
a reset circuit in the figures” (Supplemental Reply Brief,
pages 8 and 9). We agree. There is nothing indefinite about
claim 1, and this claim is fully enabled by the disclosure.
The same holds true for the other claims on appeal. The 3
3In claim 8, the phrase “the step of providing a terminal
used” is not clear, and in claim 9, the phrase “said disabling
step” lacks antecedent basis.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007