Appeal No. 96-1898
Application No. 07/921,826
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 37 CFR 1.196(b)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first and
second paragraphs, as being based on an inadequate written
description and being indefinite, respectively.
First, with regard to the written description, we find no
support in the disclosure, as originally filed, for the now
claimed limitation of the navigator enabling browsing among
objects and relationships “independent” of the database. This
limitation was added by the amendment of October 27, 1994
(Paper No.3) but we find no indication that there is any
support in the original specification, including the original
claims, or in the drawings for such a limitation.
With regard to the rejection of claim 23 under the second
paragraph, it is unclear exactly what is intended by browsing
“independent” of the database. We find no explanation in the
specification as to what is meant by “independent.” It is
unclear, for example, how the browsing of the instant claimed
invention being “independent” of the database, differs from
the browsing function taught by the Burns reference, of
record.
CONCLUSION
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007