Appeal No. 2006-2424 Page 3
Application No. 10/318,196
With respect to independent claim 2, the only claim argued by appellants, appellants
argue that Osawa fails to disclose the claimed means for measuring the time difference
between the time base and the trigger and the claimed controlling of addresses to correct
for this time difference. Appellants argue that the examiner points to portions of Osawa
in support of the rejection, but that the examiner has failed to explain how Osawa
discloses these features of the claimed invention. Thus, appellants assert that the
examiner’s findings are insufficient to justify the rejection [brief, pages 4-6].
The examiner responds that the claimed “time base” is “the same to a function that
serve as reference for time and frequency [sic],” and the “trigger” is “as the same to pulse
employed to perform operation generated by pulse generating device in sampling period
[sic]” [answer, page 8]. The examiner then cites portions of Osawa which are said to
disclose the argued limitations of claim 2. The examiner also indicates that the claimed
invention is met by Osawa “as inherently known in the technology” [id., page 9].
Finally, the examiner wonders where is the limitation that the trigger is subtracted to
produce the measured time difference recited in claim 2 [id., pages 5-10].
Appellants respond that the examiner has never shown how Osawa teaches the
claimed means for measuring the time difference between the time base and the trigger
and the claimed controlling of addresses to correct the time difference. Appellants also
respond that claim 2 clearly recites a time difference. Appellants note that the examiner
has not identified which elements in Osawa represent the time base and the trigger which
are relied on to produce the time difference [reply brief, pages 2-4].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9 as being anticipated by
Osawa for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs. We are unable to
find any disclosure within Osawa of a means for measuring the time difference between a
time base and a trigger and the controlling of memory addresses so that the time
difference is corrected. The portions of Osawa cited by the examiner simply fail to
support the examiner’s findings.
We enter the following new ground of rejection in this case using our authority
under 37 CFR § 41.50(b). Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as their invention. Independent claim 2 recites a means for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007