Appeal No. 97-3075
Application No. 08/201,846
USPQ 470, 472 (CCPA 1977); In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 772, 135
USPQ 311, 315 (CCPA 1962). While the examiner has not
maintained a clear distinction among these requirements, at
times referring to “support” [e.g., principal answer-bottom of
page 8] and, at other times, referring to “inadequate to teach
making...” [principal answer-page 6], we hold the disclosure
to contain an adequate written description and to be enabling.
At times, the examiner’s explanation of the rejection appears
to reflect a problem with the claim language being
misdescriptive.
The claims were rejected in the final rejection based on
the specification “failing to provide a teaching for detecting
a location within the sequence of latches represented by the
decoded digital phase signal.” The examiner appears to think
that the claim language requires the “sequence of latches” to
be “represented by the decoded digital phase signal.” It does
not. Perhaps the claim language could have been a little
clearer, but “represented by the decoded digital phase signal”
modifies “location” and not “sequence of latches.” As far as
support for this claim recitation, appellants point out many
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007