Appeal No. 1997-3481
Application 08/476,543
Appellants argue that page 38 of the computer printout
appendix, which shows a "DECISION TREE FOR DETERMINING BARCODE
TYPE," and the accompanying comments explaining the relevant
code sections disclose the claimed functionality (RBr6).
Appellants also argue that the Declaration of James E. Waite
establishes that the patent application as a whole enables a
person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed
invention (RBr6).
We agree with Appellants that the computer printout at
pages 38+ is sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the
art to implement the auto-discrimination function. The
printout describes a series of steps to discriminate between
different bar codes and provides a working program. The
Examiner's statements are purely conclusory and do not provide
particular reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art could
not make the claimed subject matter given the program.
The Examiner further states that "the various recitations
of the dependent claims have never been shown to have been
clearly, completely and cogently discussed in the
specification" (EA4).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007