Appeal No. 2001-1312
Application No. 08/989,701
(Answer, page 3 which makes reference to page 2 of the final
Office action mailed December 14, 1999, paper no. 17). The
Examiner concludes (id.) that a skilled artisan “ . . . would be
forced through undue experimentation to arrive at the detailed
relationships necessary to carry out the invention.”
After careful review of the arguments of record, however, we
are in agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the
Briefs. As pointed out by Appellants (Brief, pages 5-7; Reply
Brief, pages 1 and 2), the Examiner, aside from a general
allegation of insufficiency, has never specifically indicated how
Appellants’ disclosure would not be enabling with regard to the
particular method recited in the appealed claims. For example,
the Examiner has never indicated what is deficient in Appellants’
disclosure related to the claimed frequency and phase measurement
steps as well as the development of a model for the frequency and
phase functions. Our review of Appellants’ specification,
beginning at page 6, reveals a detailed description of the use of
the claimed quadratic phase model for modeling phase and
frequency, as well as a description of the claimed determination
of polynomial coefficients and the use of squared error function
to determine unknowns. Further, given the notoriety in the art
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007