Appeal No. 96-2591
Application 07/957,106
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety of these
rejections are set forth in the final rejection, the examiner’s answer, answer to the reply brief and
supplemental examiner’s answer (Paper Nos. 9, 22, 25 and 27, respectively) and the appellants’ brief,
reply brief and supplemental reply brief (Paper Nos. 21, 24 and 26, respectively).
Opinion
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-17 over the prior art.
Our analysis of the claims and prosecution history of appellants’ application indicate that
considerable speculation as to the meaning of certain terms employed and assumptions as to the scope
of such claims was made by the examiner and appellants. With respect to independent claim 1, the
examiner contends that the language “converting an input analog signal into a numerical value of N-radix
notation where N$3 or a signal corresponding thereto” is broad and is met by prior art disclosing
converting an input analog signal into a signal corresponding thereto. In contrast, appellants argue that
the above language requires converting an input analog signal into a numerical value of N-radix notation
where N$3 or converting an input analog signal to a numerical value corresponding to a N-radix
notation where N$3. A like disagreement exists with respect to similar language of the only other
independent claim, claim 13, at lines 5-7.
Because no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to the above language of claims 1 and
13 and, consequently, the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-17, the subject matter cannot be considered
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007