Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
states that "a predetermined reference condition" in claim 1
is indefinite because it "is not clear what kind of
condition is being referred to" (FR2) and that "based on the
predetermined reference condition" in claim 1 is therefore
vague (FR2-3). Appellants point to the use of the term
"predetermined decision reference condition" at page 14,
lines 19-25, of the specification. The Examiner states that
the "condition is not fully defined in the specification"
(EA15), which sounds more like a lack of enablement issue.
The Examiner does not explain why the term in the claim is
indefinite in view of the specification.
Another source of the Examiner's problem is confusing
claim breadth with indefiniteness. For example, the
Examiner states that "in accordance with an output of the
data processing device" in claim 1 is vague (FR3), when it
is just a very broad limitation. Similarly, the rejection
that "[t]here is nothing in the claim about the criteria or
parameters for parallelization" (FR3) really concerns claim
breadth.
The Examiner states that "[i]t is not possible to
determine whether 'via the data processing device' means the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007