Appeal No. 2004-1137
Application No. 09/734506
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 28, mailed August
19, 2003) for a full exposition of the examiner's position, and
to appellant's brief (Paper No. 27, filed June 25, 2003) and
reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed October 17, 2003) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the indefiniteness, anticipation
and obviousness issues raised in this appeal in light of the
record before us, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of claims 24
through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note that
the examiner questions the meaning of the terminology "mean
temperature value" as used in claims 24, 25 and 28 on appeal. On
page 12 of the answer, the examiner contends that appellant is
redefining the common meaning of the term "mean" in a manner to
include "average." According to the examiner, "[m]ean values are
median values, and are not average values." We do not agree.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007