Appeal No. 97-0514
Application 08/345,114
Rejection (1)
This rejection is stated on page 2 of the final
rejection as follows:
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefi-
nite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention.
It is not clear how the use of an analyzer
or a processor is differentiated from each
other as mentioned in claims 1, 12 and 17.
A processor can be an analyzer such as a
processor used in a personal computer to
perform program execution that analyzes
data. Furthermore, an analyzer can utilize
a processor to perform analysis of a mea-
sured signal. A spectrum analyzer is an
example of an item of test equipment capa-
ble of performing analysis and moreover it
is well known in the art that these instru-
ments can utilize processors such as a
microprocessor.
From this statement, and the arguments made on page 6 of the
answer, it appears to be the examiner's position that since an
analyzer may include a processor, and a processor may be an
2(...continued)
(3), but the examiner states in the answer (page 3) that the
rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103
have been withdrawn.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007