Appeal No. 2001-0250 Page 8
Application No. 08/283,074
distinctly points out the subject matter applicants regard as
there [sic] invention ...." (Appeal Br. at 17.)
Claim 17 specifies the following limitations: "[a] method
in accordance with claim 12 wherein said processing step
produces said output signal to represent cross-sectional area
of said confined volume as a function of distance from said
opening in said confined volume." The claim omits the
language that the examiner rejected, viz., "is produced."
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 17 as indefinite.
Regarding claims 42-46, the examiner alleges, "[d]etails
of the airway are not structural limitations on the
apparatus." The appellants argue, "claims 42-46 ... are
definite and clearly and distinctly points [sic] out the
subject matter applicants regard as there [sic] invention
...." (Appeal Br. at 17.)
Independent claim 39 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: "[a]pparatus for providing an output
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007