Appeal No. 2006-2424 Page 4
Application No. 10/318,196
“measuring the time difference between the time base and the trigger.” There is no
antecedent basis for either “the time base” or “the trigger.” There is no “time base” and
no “trigger” recited anywhere in claim 2 to support their use in the claimed means for
measuring the time difference. Presumably each of the components recited in claim 2,
that is the interpolation system, the means for measuring, the memory, and the means for
controlling the memory, could have its own time base and its own trigger. The time
difference between the time base and the trigger is critical to the scope of the claim, but it
is unclear where the time base and the trigger come from so that the claimed time
difference can be measured as claimed. Therefore, we are of the view that the artisan
would be unable to ascertain the scope of claim 2.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR ' 41.50(b)
(amended effective September 13, 2004, by final rule notice 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August
12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR
'41.50(b) provides that AA new ground of rejection . . . shall not be considered final for
judicial review.@
37 CFR ' 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options
with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the
rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new
evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by
the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request that the proceeding be
reheard under ' 41.52 by the Board upon the
same record. . . .
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007