Appeal No. 1998-2914
Application 08/510,971
opinion that the scope of protection sought in the claims on
appeal bears a reasonable correlation to the scope of
enablement provided by the appellants' disclosure.
As to the question of 1600 man hours, the brief states
that:
It is well known to practitioners in the art that
developing and implementing software to be used in a
real-time operating environment is usually a time-
consuming process since many machine variables of
the machine operation under influence of varying
environmental factors must be considered.
Appellants believe that 1600 man hours is a very
reasonable amount of effort to be expected in
implementing an invention such as the instant
invention, and do not believe that 1600 man hours is
indicative of undue experimentation in implementing
the invention. [Page 33.]
The examiner, however, has provided no reasons as to why this
might not be the case.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, the main thrust of the examiner's
position is that:
The claim language is narrative for the most part,
reciting elements in an inferential manner, omitting
necessary and meaningful structural cooperation and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007