Appeal No. 1996-2112
Application 08/210,217
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite in the recitation of “statistical interlinking.”
II. Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Barlow.
III. Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Algrim in view of Barlow.
We reverse.
Discussion
I.
The examiner argues that the phrase “statistical interlinking” in claim 7 is indefinite
as “it is not understood how two blocks can be interlinked in a statistical way.” Answer, p.
3. According to the examiner, “‘statistical’ refers to s [sic, a] large number of units and
never only two blocks.” Id. We find this argument unconvincing.
As we understand the examiner’s position, it is that he believes that the
specification definition is inconsistent with the art recognized meaning of the term
“statistical.” That is, the examiner believes that those of ordinary skill in this art would
understand “statistical” as referring to more than two blocks. We point out that, in general,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007