Ex parte LEONHARDT et al. - Page 8




          Appeal No. 1998-2914                                                        
          Application 08/510,971                                                      

               The pre-processing circuit 54 includes two                             
               differentiating circuits 71, 72 of conventional                        
               construction, with a common input 66 connected via                     
               signal line 66 to optical scanning device 1 (Fig.                      
               1), while pre-processing unit 54' is connected to                      
               scanning unit 2 via line 67.  When the scanning                        
               signal on signal line 66 goes active as a leading                      
               edge P11, P13, P15 or P17 (Fig. 8) of a register or                    
               reference mark is detected, a positive start pulse                     
               is generated on the differentiating circuit's output                   
               lead 73, and when subsequently the trailing edge of                    
               the mark is detected, a positive end pulse is                          
               generated on the output lead 74.                                       
          As to contention (5), the formulas for computing the various                
          register deviations are provided on pages 20 and 21 of the                  
          specification and the necessary hardware for computing the                  
          deviations and making corrections is diagrammatically                       
          illustrated in Fig. 11.  Page 25 of the specification states                
          that complete detail has not been shown for sake of clarity                 
          since "such details would be readily provided by a person                   
          having ordinary skills in the design of electronic circuits,"               
          and the examiner has provided no reasons whatsoever as to why               
          this might not be the case.                                                 
               On pages 12 and 13 the answer states that:                             
                    Appellant has pointed to various pages in the                     
               specification to support the contention that the                       
               questioned steps as itemized above are enabling.                       
               The conclusions made by appellant are not supported                    
               by the submission of sufficient facts to support                       
               those conclusions.  A review of the specification                      
                                          8                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007