Appeal No. 2000-1325
Application No. 08/842,758
The examiner’s position is set forth at pages 2 and 3 of the
final rejection. At page 2, paragraph 2 of that rejection, it is
urged that the combination of steps in the claims are not
described as a unit in the specification. For example, attention
is drawn to the fact that claim 1, step (c), calls for the use of
a Fourier transform shifted by the amount of phase encoding
multiplied by the sampled spectrum of the excitation profile. It
is submitted that this step is not described in the
specification, that it is one step in the claim, and that it
cannot be identified in the specification, much less the
combination of this step with steps a), b) and d).
At page 2, paragraph 3 of the final rejection, the examiner
rejected appellants’ argument to the effect that the steps of
their invention are adequately disclosed in the original claims
at pages 17-19 of their specification.
Page 3, lines 10-12, of the final rejection reads:
The examiner submits that the combination of steps
where applicant states the invention to be, is not present
in the specification only in the claims and that no
instruction by the specification is present for the
combination of steps.
We are not persuaded by the examiner’s position and will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-13. At page 3,
lines 10-13, of the answer, cited above, the examiner admitted
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007