Appeal No. 98-1396
Application 08/300,666
overcome. Appellants did not address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs, in the brief and indicated in the brief that the copy of the advisory
action received was not legible. If appellants desired a better copy, then a request to the
Examiner should have been filed. The Examiner again included the same rejections in the
Examiner's answer. Again, appellants did not address these rejections made in the
answer and did not file a reply brief to address these issues.
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the specification as it relates to the claimed
invention set forth in the chain of dependency of claims 7/24; 8/7/24; 9/8/7/24; 10/9/8/7/24
and we cannot sustain the rejections of the listed claims with regards to the issues (a)-(d)
raised by the Examiner at page 3 of the final rejection and pages 4-5 of the answer.
With respect to issue (a), none of the rejected claims 7-10 recite "valid/invalid
markers", therefore, there is no basis for the rejection in the language of the claims.
We note that claims 27 and 14 contain these limitations, but were not rejected by the
Examiner. We have reviewed the specification and find adequate support for
valid/invalid markers in the specification, as originally filed, at pages 17-20. Therefore, this
reason for the § 112 rejection is reversed.
With respect to issue (b), "scale factors" are recited in claims 8 and 9 (and their
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007