Appeal No. 97-2903
Application No. 08/492,643
processing” and “descramble processing” have rendered claims
18 through 34 indefinite and unclear because “partial,”
“scramble” and “descramble” are not recited as “portion,”
“scrambling” and descrambling,” respectively. The examiner
additionally states (final rejection, pages 2 and 3) that the
uses of “encode” and
“decode” have rendered the claims indefinite because
“scrambling” and “descrambling” are performed, and not
“encoding” and “decoding.”
We agree with appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 4 and 5)
that it is perfectly acceptable to recite “scramble” and
“descramble” without an “ing” ending. The two terms are used
throughout appellant’s disclosure, and the skilled artisan
would not have any trouble understanding what is meant by the
two terms when they are considered in light of that
disclosure. The same holds true for appellant’s use of
“partial” instead of “portion” as suggested by the examiner.
We also agree with appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 4 and 5)
that he has the right to be his own lexicographer,
particularly where no reason has been provided for finding
appellant’s chosen terms indefinite.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007