Appeal No. 1997-4395
Application No. 08/351,044
of it.
Without belaboring the issue, appellants' discussion of
pages 7 through 9 of the principal brief on appeal is well
taken. Contrary to the subject matter affirmed in the
rejection in the previous appeal, the present claims require
the resynchronization operation as noted implicitly within the
showing in Figure 9 in the lower right hand corner thereof for
any subsequent skip count beyond the first skip. The
discussion at specification page 18, lines 6 through 15, does
indicate that there is an ability of the user to set a
predetermined skip count which is part of the decision block
in the lower right-hand corner of Figure 9 on appeal.
Additionally, although not noted by appellants or the
examiner, the discussion at page 14, lines 1 through 22 of the
specification as filed relates to the operation of the
internal timer interrupt in the microprocessor 232 shown in
Figure 7 to indicate that it functions in accordance with the
operation of the termination of plural skips in the same
manner which tracks with the description at pages 15 and 16
and of the flow chart operation in Figure 9.
From our study of the entire written description and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007