Appeal No. 96-1983
Application No. 08/222,784
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
arguments in support of the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 1-9 particularly point out the
invention in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner’s
objections are directed to a lack of clear antecedent basis
[line 4, “said memory”], a typographical error [line 14, “and
apparatus”], several objections that functional language of
the claim is indefinite and lacks proper structural support,
and whether the “latching means” [line 29] is part of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007