Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
the processor as the Examiner assumes. The rejection of
claim 28 is reversed.
Thirteenth issue - claim 135
The Examiner states (OA6-7):
In claim 135, line 2, "further" should be deleted
since the processor has not been previously defined (in
claim 117) as "comprising" anything.
It is unclear what relationship, if any, exists
between the "key signals" referred to on line 2 of
claim 135 and the "key signals" recited in claim 117;
in particular, it is unclear if these are the same or
different key signals. Consequently, it is unclear
which recitation of "key signals" is relied upon for
antecedent basis of "the key signals" at claim 135,
lines 6 and 8.
In claim 135, lines 4-5, "loading into the memory
a terminate-and-stay-resident routine in the memory" is
vaguely worded, i.e. "in the memory" implies that the
TSR routine is already in the memory.
In claim 135, it is unclear what element carries
out the "distinguishing" step on lines 6-7, i.e. does
this step merely reflect the generation of distinct
"key" and "pressure" signals recited on lines 4-11 of
claim 117, or some operation carried out by the
processor.
Appellant volunteers to delete "further," to insert the
word "the" before the word "key" to clarify the antecedent
basis, and delete "in the memory." Appellant notes that
these formal rejections were raised for the first time in
- 36 -
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007