Appeal No. 1997-2292
Application No. 08/483,839
the examiner has not set forth any reason(s) why certain
statements in the claims are indefinite. “Claim 1 is quite
clear and straightforward in its recitation of the exact
relation which exists between the inputs and output of each
component circuit” (Reply Brief, page 3). Thus, the rejection
of claims 1 and 2 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 is reversed.
With respect to the non-enablement rejection of claims 1
and 2, the appellant explains (Brief, pages 5 and 6) that:
A circuit according to the present invention is
composed of two components, each of which is
relatively simple. The first component is a clock-
number detecting circuit whose only function, as
defined in claim 1, is to provide an output signal
having a given form only when the serially input
pulse train has a predetermined number of clocks.
Thus, this circuit is only required to count the
number of clocks in a pulse train and determine
whether or not the train contains a given number of
clicks, or clock pulses.
The second component of the circuit defined in
claim 1 is a program control circuit having a first
input port connected to receive the output signal
from the clock-number detecting circuit and a second
input port for receiving a trigger signal. The only
function of the program control circuit is to
deliver a program instruction to a memory when the
signal at the first input port has the given form at
a time when the trigger signal applied to the second
input port changes from one state to another.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007