Appeal No. 1999-0245
Application No. 08/720,268
In this lack of description rejection (answer, page 7), the
examiner focuses upon the same claim language that was at issue
in the indefiniteness rejection, supra, and that we determined to
be definite in meaning. An analysis of the content of claims 1,
11, 16, and 8, as originally filed with the present application,
reveals for the most part word for word correspondence with the
claims now on appeal, as was pointed out by appellant (main
brief, pages 9 through 11). Thus, it is quite apparent to this
panel of the Board that the language in the claims now under
rejection has the requisite descriptive basis in the original
disclosure. For the preceding reasons, the examiner’s lack of
description rejection is not well founded and cannot be
sustained.7
7
7 The examiner’s detailed discussion in the objection to the
specification (answer, pages 5 and 6), as noted by appellant in
the main and reply briefs, is not commensurate with the language
of the claims on appeal in that it is focused upon what is
perceived be an inadequacy in the specification as to how the
“best or strongest echo” is determined. As an aside, we simply
note appellant’s indication (specification, page 7) that maximum
amplitude echoes are selected as true surface echoes with the
present invention, and make reference to the knowledge and skill
in the art of using storage registers and a series of counters
that collectively address elapsed time (time delay) and echo
amplitude parameters, as revealed by Trudeau.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007