Appeal No. 1996-1767 Page 11
Application No. 08/220,410
Here, the recitation of an LWDF appears only in the
preamble of claims 1 and 25. The bodies of the claims do not
specify or reference an LWDF. Applying DeGeorge, the
recitation does not limit the claims. Because the language in
the body of the claims, standing alone, is "clear and
unambiguous," Arshal v. United States, 621 F.2d 421, 430-31,
208 USPQ 397, 406-07 (Ct. Cl. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S.
1077 (1981), moreover, there is no compelling reason to give
the recitation patentable weight. The appellants’ reliance on
the recitation is not persuasive.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the appellants point out what
the claims cover and generally allege that “[n]either Hirosaki
nor Fujii discloses or suggests this aspect ....” (Appeal Br.
at 11.) The examiner replies, “Hirosaki’s multipliers 113 and
112 ... effect the recited multiplying.” (Examiner’s Answer
at 6.)
The reply brief neither alleges nor shows error in the
examiner’s reply.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007