Appeal No. 95-3807
Application 08/088,696
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit points out that "[i]t is not necessary that the claimed subject
matter be described identically, but the disclosure originally filed must convey to those skilled in
the art that applicant had invented the subject matter later claimed." In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516,
1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985), citing In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner argues on page 3 of the answer that the specification does not support the
claim limitation "generating corresponding paging signals in a predetermined sequence" as recited
in Appellant's claims 6 and 8. The Examiner argues in the answer and the supplemental answer
that this limitation is new matter and thereby the claims fail to satisfy the requirements of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We note that the claim limitation is setting forth the routing function of the communication
to the CPE devices. Originally filed claims 1 through 3 set forth a switching means for routing the
communications to the CPE devices wherein the switch means is provisioned with Automatic Call
Distribution architecture (ACD) and wherein the ACD is adapted to perform the routing functions
in a predetermined sequence. Furthermore, on page 7,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007