Appeal No. 96-1898
Application No. 07/921,826
adds Joseph to this combination in rejecting claim 11. This
would appear reasonable and proper since claim 11 depends from
claim 1 the rejection of which relies, at least in part, on
Joseph.
Thus, we will presume, in reaching our decision, that the
rejections before us are:
1. Rejection of claims 12 through 22 under the first and
second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112.
2. Rejection of claims 1, 3 through 10 and 12 through 22
under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ferrer and Joseph.
3. Rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ferrer,
Joseph and Blaha.
4. Rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ferrer
and Burns.
With these presumptions in mind, we proceed with our
decision.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 12 through 22
under 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs.
With regard to the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, this
rejection is based on the enablement clause, the examiner
contending that the claim limitation of “rule information”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007