Appeal 2007-1083
Application 09/847,093
1 objection was that the application of filter weights and removal of multi-path
2 using the filter of the invention are not understood. Although the Examiner
3 makes these assertions, the Examiner does not go beyond the assertions into
4 the specific disclosure to explain why the language would have been
5 considered incomprehensible to an artisan in the Digital Signal Processing
6 field. In addition, we add that the Examiner does not specifically address the
7 textbook provided or comment as to why the Examiner feels that an artisan
8 understanding the textbook would not have been able to ascertain the metes
9 and bounds of the claimed invention.
10 The Examiner additionally asserts (Answer 6) that
11 While language such as "a communication system comprising a
12 radio transmitter transmitting a signal which is interfered with
13 by fixed reflectors and moving reflectors, said system
14 comprising an antenna, a receiver and a multipath reduction
15 subsystem comprising an analog to digital converter, a real to
16 complex converter..." is understood, any language which must
17 be read in light of the specification is incomprehensible because
18 the specification is incomprehensible.
19
20 We are not persuaded by this argument because if the language would have
21 been understandable to an artisan, the meets and bounds of the claim would
22 be clear. In sum, the Examiner has not provided any convincing line of
23 reasoning that would establish the indefiniteness of the claims. As we
24 stated, supra, if the examiner believes the claims are based on a non-
25 enabling disclosure or lacks written description, the Examiner should enter a
26 rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
27 Moreover, the fact that the Examiner cannot understand the purpose
28 of the equations found on pages 5 and 6 of the Specification (Final rejection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013