Appeal No. 2004-1596
Application No. 09/544,858
claims. The claimed term “to ignore the first signal” in view of
the disclosed embodiments, as depicted in Figures 6 and 7, is not
clearly disclosed since the figures do not clearly define the
relationship between the first and the second signal, nor
identify which two signals they particularly refer to. Although
Appellant attempts to relate the claimed language to the
disclosure and figures 6 and 7 in the “Summary of the Invention”
section (brief, pages 3-6), there is no description of the
signals that correspond to those decoded by the first and the
second devices or ignored by the second device.
As explained above, the disclosure lacks an enabling
description of the signals decoded by the first and the second
protocol and how it is determined that the second protocol is
used by a second device wherein the second device is adapted to
ignore the first signal. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-25, 27-46 and 48-63
are rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, for
the reasons explained.
In addition to reversing the Examiner’s decision rejecting
the claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69
Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21
(September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007