Appeal No. 96-3054
Application 08/134,147
969, 169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971). However, we have also
reviewed Appellant’s explanation of inherency, and find no
clear support for the recited claim limitation.
The noted claim language does not appear in the
specification. Since Appellant has not demonstrated with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that he was in
possession of the invention as of the filing date of the
application, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 through
7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
With regard to the rejection of claims 19 through 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the Examiner holds
that the claim limitation “said phase detector provides said
first phase detector signal as duty cycle modulated pulses” is
not supported by the specification as originally filed.
Appellant contends that this limitation is disclosed in the
specification as originally filed, and explains the circuit
operation (brief-page 15). Reviewing these arguments, we
agree with the Examiner that these arguments do not
demonstrate with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the
art that Appellant was in possession of the invention as of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007