Appeal No. 2002-1689
Application No. 08/796,285 Page 4
employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by
one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
Id. The examiner's position (answer, pages 3 and 4) is that:
It is not clear[ly] whether a plurality of the
first transmitted signals claimed in claims 30-32
are the same first transmitted signal. If it [is] the
case then the same first transmitted signal would
be connected to the first input of the first decoder,
the first output of the first decoder and the first
input of the second decoder. Therefore, the first
decoder would be bypassed because the same first
transmitted signal [would be] connected to both the
input and the output. This remark is also applied to
the second input and output of the first decoder, the
second decoder, the third decoder and the fourth
decoder. Secondly, it is not clearly what type of
decoder is [being claimed].”
Appellant responds (reply brief, page 2) that “Claims 30-32 are
readable upon the apparatus of FIGS. 17 and 18. These claims do
not recite a plurality of first transmitted signals. These
claims recite decoders with inputs and outputs corresponding to
what is disclosed FIG. 17. Each recited decoder has first and
second inputs for receiving or normally receiving transmitted
signals, these inputs labeled with a subscript t. The decoders
in FIG. 17 are characterized by having first, second and third
outputs.” We agree. We find that claim 30 does not recite a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007