Appeal No. 2007-0204
Application 10/938,966
in the claims implies that the gradients can be present but in a reduced
level. The term reduced i[s] normally understood to mean[] less tha[n]
the previous amount. One does not generally understand the term to
mean that the gradients have been turned off.
The Examiner has also objected to claim 45, stating that "it is unclear
as to how the parameters disabled relate to the disabled parameters set forth in
claim 44" (Final Rejection at 2). Appellant argues that the supposed
objection exalts form over substance and is actually a rejection. Since we
agree with Appellant, and since Appellant has addressed the merits as if it
were a rejection, the objection to claim 45 will be treated as a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
DISCUSSION
Claim 45
Appellant argues that the objection is really a rejection because it goes
to the substance or clarity of the claim rather than the form. We agree. The
objection goes to whether claim 45 is definite and therefore is properly treated
as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Appellant argues that claim 45 calls for the disclosed computer
program to disable the 3D parameters in a third dimension in "real-time" to
modify the pulse sequence to create and apply an effective pulse sequence,
which is neither unclear nor confusing (Brief at 4). It is argued that "[t]he
computer disables the 3D parameters called for in the seventh line of claim 44
in real-time" (id.), which is not ambiguous or unclear (id.).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013