Appeal No. 96-2274
Application No. 08/291,354
disclosure originally filed must convey to those skilled in
the art that applicant had invented the subject matter later
claimed." In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369,
372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985),
citing In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
On page 3 of the answer, the Examiner argues that
Appellants' claims 18 and 25 require separate and independent
readings of the transmitted and received signals. The
Examiner argues that no such approach has been disclosed by
Appellants. From this argument, it appears that the Examiner
is arguing that the originally filed specification fails to
provide a description of separate and independent readings of
the transmitted and received signals as now later claimed by
Appellants.
In the reply brief, Appellants argue that the scope of
claims 18 and 25 encompasses the preferred embodiment as shown
in Figure 1 in which the standing wave made up of both the
transmitted and received signals as well as the embodiment in
which the signals are separately read. Appellants argue that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007