Appeal No. 97-3075
Application No. 08/201,846
problem might stem from the examiner’s interpretation of the
claim to require that the sequence of latches, rather than a
location therein, be actually represented by the decoded
digital phase signal. Accordingly, we will not sustain this
portion of the examiner’s rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
However, we reach a different result, and will sustain
the portion of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, wherein the examiner indicates that there is no
proper antecedent basis for “the detected edges” in the
penultimate lines of independent claims 1 and 16. While the
problem appears to be an easy one to correct, technically, the
examiner is correct in that there is no proper antecedent
basis for “the detected edges” because the claims previously
call for only a single “edge.” We do not agree with
appellants that sequencing “values” implies plural edges. One
might have a sequence of values and still be interested in
only one edge of a waveform.
We have sustained the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, but we have not sustained the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007