Appeal No. 96-4055
Application No. 08/157,028
The examiner’s rejection of claims 16 through 31 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 is reversed.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 16 through 31
under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the examiner contends
that the claims are “incomplete as they fail to define how the
first and second signals are related to the rest of the
claimed invention” [answer-page 5], noting that the recited
signals are not image signals, as claimed.
Our review of the claims finds no indefiniteness as
contended by the examiner. We agree with appellant’s
arguments set forth at pages 5-7 of the principal brief and
adopt the same as our own in countering the examiner’s
rejection of claims 16 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph. All elements of the claims are clearly
interconnected. To the extent that the examiner bases the
indefiniteness rejection on the alleged deficiencies set forth
in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, we also
disagree for the reasons, supra, regarding the reversal of
that rejection.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16 through 31 under
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007