Appeal No. 2001-0250 Page 11
Application No. 08/283,074
Regarding claim 80, the examiner alleges that the claim
"fails to provide that any structure is capable of producing
or in any way is related 'an impulse response'." (Examiner's
Answer at 10.) The appellants argue, "claim 80 is definite
and clearly and distinctly points out the subject matter
applicants regard as there [sic] invention ...." (Appeal Br.
at 18.)
Claim 80 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: a processor means coupled to said plurality of
pressure-wave-sensing transducers for processing said first
and second transduced signals produced in response to the
incident wave, the reflected wave and any reflected wave from
the second end to provide a signal representative of an
impulse response of the geometry and to provide said output
signal characteristic of said confined volume geometry ...."
One skilled in the art would understand that claim 80 recites
a processor means that provides a signal representing an
impulse response of a geometry. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claim 80 as indefinite. We proceed to the double
patenting and obviousness-type double patenting rejections.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007