Appeal No. 96-1898
Application No. 07/921,826
be non-responsive and/or immaterial to whether the artisan
would have known how to make and use the claimed “rule
information to act on classes of said objects.”
In the reply brief, appellant further explains that the
“operational or business rules” recited in the specification
is the claimed “rule information.” If so, this still does not
explain how such rules “act on classes of...objects,” as
claimed, nor does it explain how the skilled artisan is to
implement these rules in such a manner as to practice the
claimed invention.
The examiner has established a reasonable basis for
challenging the sufficiency of the instant disclosure with
regard to the subject matter of claims 12 through 22 and, in
our view, appellant has not sufficiently answered that
challenge. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 12 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
We will also sustain the rejection of claims 12 through
22 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for similar reasons.
That is, we simply do not understand what is meant by “rule
information to act on classes of said objects.” If “rule
information” is represented by relationship connections, as
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007