Appeal No. 1998-1901
Application 08/506,804
applied prior art. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 14 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner observes
that if the first through fourth steps are repeated, then the
process will be ongoing and never render a final output result
[answer, page 5]. Appellant responds that the repeating step
is not repeated so that the method ends after nine steps are
performed
[brief, pages 10-11]. The examiner responds that the
repetition of the first through fourth steps creates two
“photoelectric signals,” two “first analog signals,” two
“second analog signals” and two “digital signals,” which
renders the claim indefinite [answer, pages 18-19]. Appellant
responds that there is only one
signal present at the time each of the first through fourth
steps is performed [reply brief, page 7].
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007