Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
at updated boundary nodes of the one block overlapping to
interior nodes of the adjoining block use boundary and
interior nodes of the adjoining block, whereby the equation
solutions at updated boundary nodes are coupled between the
one block and the adjoining block.
Claims 3 through 5 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based on a nonenabling
disclosure. According to the examiner (Answer, pages 8 and
9):
Applicant has not adequately disclosed how the
nodes are picked for a given geometry, how the
picked nodes are assembled, and how to determine the
compressibility of the fluid.
The determination of the compressibility of the
fluid appears to be where the disclosure is more
lacking. Applicant has not even disclosed which
equations are used, or the data processing system to
solve the 4,000 equations with the appropriate
software to manage the processing of such a complex
system.
The prior art cited by the Examiner and
Applicant is evidence of the level of skill in the
art. See Thompson, Composite Grid Generation Code
for General 3-D Regions--the Eagle Code, AIAA
Journal, 1988. In the fluid flow art the knowledge
of software engineering is rudimentary, at best.
Therefore, given the state in the art in tandem with
the shallowness of the disclosure [sic]. It would
have take [sic, taken] countless man/hours to
develop the invention as presently claimed.
Claims 3 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claims
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007