Appeal No. 1997-4446
Application No. 08/278,151
[f]or the offset compensation limitations, applicant
argues that microcomputer 62 may be programmed to
carry out a process by which a rectangular waveform
is added to the control signal. This operation is
not depicted in Figure 9. It would not necessarily
be obvious to one of ordinary skill in [sic, the]
art.
The examiner concludes that the specification fails to enable
claim 10. In the Answer (page 4), the examiner continues that
"the specification does not explain how the offset
compensation signal is derived. The disclosure never
describes how the measured value of page 17 is converted into
the offset of page 27." As pointed out by appellants (Brief,
page 17) the specification clearly indicates on page 28 that
the microcomputer may be programmed to calculate from
measurements of height differences (described on page 17 of
the specification) the amount of offset for the rectangular
waveform shown in Figure 10(e). Although the specification
does not detail the particular calculation, we agree with
appellants that such would be well within the level of one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Again, one should not
underestimate the level of the skilled artisan. See id.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the enablement rejection of
claim 10.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007