Appeal No. 1997-4395
Application No. 08/351,044
detected and recorded. This feature distinguishes over the
claims in the earlier appeal, and it is noted that the
remaining subject matter basically of independent claim 32 on
appeal in this application is substantially the same as
presented in independent claim 1 in the previous appeal in
which the rejection was reversed. The brief and reply brief
make it clear that presently there is a differently claimed
invention than that set forth in the claims affirmed under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the prior decision.
Pages 7 through 9 of the principal brief on appeal track
substantially all of the features disclosed in the present
application by making specific reference to the written
description and figures as appropriate to justify the subject
matter of the resynchronization clause of each independent
claim on appeal.
The subject matter of earlier claim 3, on which the Board
did affirm the rejection, is not by itself, presently on
appeal. Even though the subject matter of this claim is
present in dependent claim 34 in this application, for
example, this claim depends from parent claim 32 which
includes necessarily the resynchronization clause at the end
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007