Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
language, are claim limitations as well, and appellant appears to
disregard these interconnections as claim limitations.
On pages 15-16 of the Supplemental Appeal Brief and 12-16 of
the Reply Brief, appellant argues that the examiner disregards
the reduced-to-practice "Experimental System." Further,
appellant asserts (Reply Brief, pages 16-32) that the disclosure
provides legal "examples" of computer programs for many of the
claim limitations. On pages 23-60 of the Reply Brief, appellant
argues that the reduced-to-practice computer programs provide
working examples of various claimed elements such as temporal
interpolation (referring to specification pages 248-292, 435-438,
and 567-574), spatial interpolation (referring to specification
pages 31-37, 146-150, 164-168, 240-373, and 503-574),
undersampling (referring to specification pages 53, 57, 90, and
378), and filtering (referring to specification pages 29, 33, 64,
69, and 169). The rejection states (Answer, page 13) that
"[w]hile there may be mentions of these various elements (or
processes) scattered throughout the specification, there is no
disclosure of actually combining these disparate items into one
complete integrated system as is now being claimed." Appellant's
arguments do not address the lack of interconnections, but rather
focus on individual elements. Furthermore, the disparate pages
referenced by appellant in pointing to the support for the
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007