Appeal No. 1996-3324
Application No. 08/132,969
appeal. Dependent claims 2-4 have not been argued separately
and, accordingly, will stand or fall with their base claim 1.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of the Data Converter Reference Manual
does not fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1-4.
Further, it is our opinion that the disclosure of Okuyama
anticipates the recited invention in claims 1-4, but we reach
the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 6 and 7. We
are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 6 and
7. We also, after consideration of the record before us,
reach the conclusion that the disclosure in this application
does not describe the claimed invention in a manner which
complies with the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we affirm.
The rejection of claims 1-7 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We note that the Examiner, instead of relying on the
“written description” or “enablement” language of the statute,
has used the terminology “lack of support” in the statement of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007