Appeal No. 1997-3481
Application 08/476,543
claims are functions of the "bar code signal processor" in
paragraph (f) of claim 15, the "circuitry including a
microprocessor" in paragraph (e) of claim 25, and the "control
circuitry" in paragraph (g) of claim 26. There is not a
problem under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The
rejection of claims 15, 25, and 26 is reversed.
The Examiner states that the "dependent claims are
equally nebulous when compared with the disclosure" (EA3).
As discussed above, Appellants point out the support for
the limitations of the dependent claims in the disclosure
(RBr8-9). Appellants argue that "since the Examiner has
pointed to no language in the dependent claims which is
indefinite or 'nebulous' and since the claims are clearly
supported by the specification, Applicants submit that the
dependent claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112"
(RBr9).
We have reviewed the dependent claims and disagree with
the Examiner that the language of the dependent claims is
indefinite or misdescriptive. The Examiner's statement the
dependent claims are "nebulous" is not specific and we do not
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007