Appeal No. 96-2223 Page 3
Application No. 07/885,708
and central office exchange in response to the first return
signal.
No references are relied on by the examiner.
Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, as being based on an inadequate written
description. More particularly, the examiner contends that
there is no support in the original disclosure for the now
claimed limitations of “testing and evaluating results of the
test of the subscriber sets within the service mode” recited in
claim 1, “the remote terminal for testing and evaluation of the
subscriber sets” and “ordering a test and an evaluation”
recited in claim 6 and “the service node for testing and
evaluation” and “a command to test and evaluate the subscriber
sets” recited in claim 10.
Rejections based on prior art have been withdrawn by the
examiner and are not before us on appeal.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007