Appeal No. 96-2820
Application 08/227,705
explicit claimed 'means'." (answer at page 3), and therefore
not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 6. On page 9
of the answer the Examiner states "Clearly all that is
disclosed is a catch-all of intended functions without any
real disclosure as
to how to make and use these intended functions.”
Appellants have responded by noting that the
questioned "addressing means" has been changed to "word lines"
making this point moot. Also, Appellants have identified
support in the specification and figures for all other
questioned items noted
by the Examiner and recited in the claims. With regard to the
adequacy of the specification, Appellants take the position
that
they "are not required to describe in detail elements known in
the art", and cite prior art references that disclose further
details (brief at the top of page 13).
We agree with the Appellants that their disclosure
does provide support for the elements claimed, and find that
the scope of the claim language does not exceed the support
noted in the specification. Moreover, we have no problem with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007