Appeal No. 2000-0588 Page 16
Application No. 08/824,110
count signal are equal. As discussed above, neither Wingate nor Hughes teaches or
suggests the use of a random number generator in a message timer.
Claims 13 and 14, which depend from claim 12 and also require a clock circuit
for generating a clock signal, a random number generator for generating a first random
number, which is used to generate a first trigger signal, a scaler for generating a timing
signal correlative to the first random number, a counter for receiving the clock signal
and generating a count signal correlative thereto, and a comparator for receiving the
timing signal and count signal and generating a first trigger signal when the timing
signal and count signal are equal, stand rejected as being unpatentable over Wingate in
view of Nakajima and Rose. In that none of Wingate, Nakajima and Rose teaches or
suggests the use of a random number generator in a message timer, we conclude that
the applied references are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
the claimed subject matter. We thus will not sustain this rejection.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new rejection.
Claims 2, 3, 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which appellants
regard as the invention.
As discussed above, the purpose of the second paragraph of § 112 is to provide
those who would endeavor, in future enterprises, to approach the area circumscribed by
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007