Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
as set forth in claim 177, further comprising the act of: making
a product in response to the temporally interpolated image
information." The examiner explains (Answer, page 18) that there
is no disclosure of "what the products are, how they are made,
and how such product claims should be interpreted." The examiner
continues that "[p]articularly, there is no description of making
the claimed 'products' in response to the limitations of other
claims."
The step of "making a product" is an additional step (as
indicated by the limitations "further comprising" and "in
response to"). Thus, the product is not the end result of the
process, but is the result of some additional "making" step. The
specification does not describe the "product" that is made or the
additional "making step." Certainly, the specification does not
describe making anything tangible in the way of hardware. There
is no reason why appellant cannot specifically describe and name
what is being made instead of using the generic term "product."
The descriptions of "products" in the specification have nothing
to do with the claimed products, but deal with such things as the
result of a multiplication operation. Although the disclosure
describes hardware (computers, memory chips, etc.) which are
products, this hardware does not fit the claimed product which is
made in response to information. Appellant does not inform us
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007