Appeal No. 1998-0476
Application 08/397,157
The Examiner believes claim 7 is indefinite because,
as noted in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, the “predetermined
period” would result in continuous resetting of the
microcomputer. Such a result does not particularly point out
and distinctly claim the invention to the Examiner, and is
thus confusing. (Answer-pages 5 and 6.)
Appellants argue that their explanation regarding
utility takes care of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues (brief-page
15).
We agree with Appellants. Since the invention of
claim 7 has been shown to have utility, in that the
microcomputer does not continue to reset, the claim does
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, and
there is no confusion.
The Examiner is correct in that there is no specific
recitation of a “predetermined time” in the specification.
However, there are several operations recited in the
specification that take place within a predetermined time.
The monitoring circuit has an internal time counter which must
be reset within a predetermined time (page 6, lines 9-12).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007