Appeal No. 1997-1351
Application 08/127,924
infringe an applicant's right to claim what he regards as
his invention. Nevertheless, we have the rejection before
us and must decide it. It is the Examiner's burden to
establish that the claim is inoperative and fails to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Despite the lack of argument on the merits by Appellants, we
are not persuaded that claim 19 fails to particular point
out and distinctly claim what Appellants regard as their
invention.
The Examiner does not point to any evidence that
Appellants regard their invention to be something other than
what is claimed. The fact that the originally filed
independent claim 1 did not include a controller or an
interface module indicates the original intent to claim the
system without either element. Moreover, claim 19 does not
recite any cooperation between processors that would make
some structure necessary.
As to the Examiner's contention that the interface
module having a blockable coupling element is essential, the
fact that such an interface module is disclosed does not
necessarily render it essential or imply that the claimed
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007