Appeal No. 97-0514
Application 08/345,114
processor, but instead recite, inter alia, steps such as
"performing an analysis of the output" (claim 17) or "compar-
ing the analysis with a reference" (claim 23), which do not
require that they be performed by any particular apparatus.
As for claims 7 to 16, we do not consider that they
are so unclear that one of ordinary skill would have any
difficulty comprehending their scope. Claim 12, for example,
calls for:
an analyzer operable to measure the
intensity of said detected emitted radia-
tion; and
a processor coupled to said analyzer,
said processor operable to determine the
parameter by comparing said measured inten-
sity with a reference.
In our view, it would be evident to one of ordinary skill that
the scope of this language is such that the claimed processor
would read on any processor which was "coupled to said ana-
lyzer" and "operable to determine . . . with a reference,"
regardless of whether the processor performing the recited
determining function was included as a part of the analyzer,
or constituted a separate unit. This is particularly clear
from the disclosure in the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007