Appeal No. 1999-1606
Application No. 08/968,384
connected? If so, how can this be said to be “arbitrary”?
Claims 6-13 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as relying on an inadequate
written description. While the claims all recite a “single, arbitrary code word,” we find no support for
this recitation in the original disclosure. Page 10 of the specification, at line 13, recites storing “a code”
and the bottom of page 10 recites the programming of an EEPROM “with a unique identity code.”
However, we find nothing disclosed relative to “single, arbitrary code word.” In fact, the disclosure of
a “unique” identity code stored in an EEPROM would appear to be completely different from a code
that is “arbitrary.” Further, the sentence bridging pages 10 and 11 recites that each “type of module
offered for the computer has a specific identity code.” Again, “specific” codes would appear to be
completely different from codes which are “arbitrary,” as claimed. It appears that appellants amended
the claims to include a “single, arbitrary code word” in order to overcome the applied prior art.
However, there is no support for such a claim
limitation in the original disclosure and appellants have never adequately explained what is meant by
such a limitation nor how it distinguishes over the code words of Sawdon.
CONCLUSION
We have affirmed the examiner’s decision of claims 6-13 with regard to double patenting and we
have reversed the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103, but we have entered
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007