Appeal No. 1997-1416
Application 08/277,386
byte. The examiner correctly points out that one of the two
values subtracted in subtractor 32 of Figure 1 remains
untranslated [specification, paragraph bridging pages 8-9].
Thus, the subtraction operation as recited in claim 18 is
never performed by the invention as disclosed. Since the
operation recited in claim 18 is contrary to the disclosed
invention, we agree with the examiner that claim 18 does not
satisfy the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
With respect to claim 45, we find the claim to be in
compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112. Although the claim might be
clearer and more accurate if the converting step read
“converting said first result or said inverted first result
into proper thermometer code format,” the claim is still not
indefinite. The artisan interpreting this claim in light of
the specification would understand that the phrase “said first
result” refers to the first result if no inverting step has
been performed or to the inverted first result if the
inverting step was performed.
With respect to claim 46, we do not see the
indefiniteness asserted by the examiner. The steps of claim
46 appear to be performed independently of the steps of claim
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007