Appeal No. 1998-0957
Application 08/258,409
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 22-24 particularly point out the
invention in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
are also of the view that the collective evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness
of the invention as set forth in claims 1-45. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 22-24 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s
rejection states the following:
Regarding claim 22, the function of the reset
circuit is unclear. ... Regarding claim 24, the
claim is functionally recited, it is not clear
what means or elements are being claimed to
perform the functions of storing, comparing and
generating [answer, page 4].
With respect to claim 22, appellant argues that there is no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007