Appeal No. 2002-2169 Page 9
Application No. 09/163,286
enabling with respect to a step of measuring time differences using a time-based clock
(parent claim 4 limitation) by observing phase differences at a plurality of frequencies
(dependent claim further limiting the step of the parent claim)." (Examiner's Answer
at 4.) The appellants argue, "[a] person of ordinary skill in the field knows that signals
that are reflected have the same frequency as the original out-bound one and that their
traveled distance will have a phase delay that is a function of that distance." (Reply Br.
at 2.)
"For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the argument shall
specify the errors in the rejection and how the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 is
complied with, including, as appropriate, how the specification and drawings . . .
[e]nable any person skilled in the art to make and use the subject matter defined by
each of the rejected claims. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(i)(B).
Here, the appellants' argument is not responsive to the examiner's rejection.
More specifically, although the examiner asserts a failure to enable the measuring of
time differences using a time-based clock by observing phase differences at plural
frequencies, the appellants argue that reflected signals have a phase delay that is a
function of traveled distance. The argument does not allege, let alone show, that the
specification and drawings enable any person skilled in the art to measure time
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007