Appeal No. 96-1119
Application 07/690,176
“indirectly” and “using” in claim 2, but never indicated why
these terms were considered to be imprecise [answer, page 3].
Since these terms would appear to be definite in view of the
specification, and since the examiner has not provided any
explanation in support of his objection, we do not sustain
this basis for objecting to the claims. The examiner also
noted several “antecedent basis problems” in the claims which
no longer exist in the amended claims now before us.
The examiner has also objected to the claims as being
incomplete and for being unclear as to how and where the
computer program is implemented or run [answer, pages 4-5].
The examiner provides no cogent explanation for these
objections and we are unable to come up with any on our own.
We see no reason why the artisan would not understand what is
within the scope of the claimed invention.
In summary, we do not sustain any of the examiner’s
objections to the claims under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C.
§ 112.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The basis for this rejection is that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007