Appeal No. 1999-1109
Application No. 08/359,904
With respect to claim 17, we are of the opinion that the
absolute velocity terms and the relative velocity terms are not
clearly defined in the specification as we have explained above
regarding the written description requirement. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that claim 17 and dependent claims 18-20 are
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Regarding
claim 2, however, we agree with Appellant that claim 1, the
parent claim of claim 2, is not restricted to only two telephone
systems. Appellant is correct in arguing that claim 2 contains
three telephone systems and it is not in conflict with the
language of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
There are two sets of rejections under this ground of
rejection using two different references. Before we discuss any
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007