Appeal No. 1997-1190
Application No. 08/427,972
and program the necessary hardware to obtain the claimed
signal synchronization. The examiner has not articulated a
reasonable explanation of why the scope of protection provided
by the rejected claims is not adequately enabled by the
disclosure.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13, 14 and 16 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being directed to a
non-enabling disclosure.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bseisu
The § 102 rejection rests, at least in part, on the
examiner’s determination that Bseisu meets the limitations in
independent claims 1 and 10 relating to the synchronized
acquisition of measuring signals (see, for example, pages 10
and 11 in the supplemental answer). In this regard, claim 1
requires the claimed processing installation to comprise
"means for processing of said measurement signals so that
acquiring of said measurement signals from said first and
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007