Appeal No. 96-2223 Page 5
Application No. 07/885,708
only “testing,” but also “evaluating” those test results, as
now claimed.
The examiner contends that no evaluation of test results
is found in the original disclosure and that the sending of a
command indicating the test results from the service node does
not inherently include evaluation of the test results at the
node. We agree with the examiner that the mere disclosure of
testing at the service node does not, necessarily, translate to
an “evaluation” at the service node. Tests may very well be
performed at one location and the test results then sent to
another location for “evaluation” of those test results.
Further, appellant’s reference to page 7, lines 4-21 of
the specification is unpersuasive of an adequate written
description to support the claimed limitations in question.
The reference to page 7, lines 4-21, refers to various test
items but to no “evaluation.” It is not clear, from the cited
portion of page 7, whether there is an “evaluation” being
performed by the service node. Therefore, this portion of the
specification cited by appellant does not indicate clearly that
the inventor had possession, at the time of the original
disclosure, of that which is now claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007