Appeal No. 1997-1373
Application No. 08/478,811
a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the
disclosure. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ
561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190
USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676,
677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
The Examiner has questioned (Answer, page 3) the
sufficiency of Appellant’s disclosure in describing any physical
link between the heat bath mathematical model and the base
station channel allocation system. In arguments related to this
contention, the Examiner asserts a failure of Appellant’s
disclosure to show how the changes of heat bath particle state
are related to base station interference, as well as failure to
provide a description of how the reduction of heat bath
temperature would effect a change in the base station
interference level. (Id., at 4). In the Examiner’s view,
Appellant’s disclosure fails to provide a “nexus” between the
heat bath mathematical model, which the Examiner likens to a
theoretical experiment, and the base station channel
distribution system. (Id., at 5).
After careful review of the arguments of record, however,
we are in agreement with Appellant’s position as stated in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007