Appeal No.1997-0898
Application No. 08/281,879
depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand what is claimed in light of the specification.
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d
818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in agreement
with Appellants (Brief, page 4; Reply Brief, pages 1-3) that,
contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, there is no ambiguity or
lack of clarity in the claimed terminology “threshold,”
especially in view of Appellants’ description at page 6 of the
specification. Similarly, we find no ambiguity in the language
“...a reliability measure based on the degree of similarity
between the text representations of components” appearing in
claims 4, 9, 11, 15, and 18. As pointed out by Appellants, the
specification at pages 7 and 8 describes how a reliability
measure is generated based on a degree of similarity such as by
a measure of Hamming distance. It is our view that the skilled
artisan, having considered the specification in its entirety,
would have no difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention
recited in the appealed claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s
rejection under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007