Appeal No. 1996-2198
Application 08/077,506
Claim 2 further stands rejected under § 103 for
obviousness over Kuroda in view of Baker and Webster.
E. The merits of the § 112, first paragraph, rejection
Although the statement of the § 112, first paragraph
rejection asserts that the claims fail to satisfy the written
description and best mode requirements, the examiner's
arguments implicate only the enablement requirement.
The examiner contention that "[t]he approximate
continuous probability density function Bc is not defined in
the specification" (Answer at 7, lines 20-21) is unpersuasive,
because the examiner has not explained why the formulas given
at page 12 fail to adequately explain how to obtain the
Gaussian probability density function.
The examiner also challenges the sufficiency of the
disclosure of the second pattern forming circuit 18, which the
specification as filed described as follows:
The second pattern forming circuit 18 receives
the state transition probability distribution A from
the first pattern forming circuit 16 and the
approximate continuous [feature code] probability
density function Bc from the function generator 17
and combines them to form a second pattern. The
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007