Appeal No. 1997-1416
Application 08/277,386
45 since they operate on different bytes of the two words.
Therefore, the steps of claim 46 are performed independently
of the steps of claim 45, and the steps of claim 46 are not
sequentially related to the steps of claim 45.
In summary, we agree with appellants that the artisan
having considered the specification of this application would
have no difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention
recited in claims 17 and 45-57. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of these claims. We agree with the examiner,
however, that claim 18 is misdescriptive. Therefore, the
rejection of claim 18, and claims 19-29 which depend
therefrom, under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
sustained.
We now consider the provisional rejection of all appealed
claims under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting over the claims of copending Application No.
07/954,133 (now U.S. Patent No. 5,699,287). The basis of this
rejection is that the appealed claims are merely method
versions of the claims of the
copending application which would improperly extend the term
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007