Appeal No. 96-2223 Page 6
Application No. 07/885,708
However, we are persuaded that there is an adequate
written description in the original disclosure to support
“evaluation” by appellant’s reference to page 10, lines 3-21.
It is clear from this portion of the specification and from
Figure 8, that not only are tests being performed at the
service node, but that there is also an “evaluation” of the
test results being performed since an output of “good” or “no
good” is made. This determination, not only of a test of a
voltage value, for example, but of whether that value is within
a certain range, i.e., “good” or “no good,” is an “evaluation.”
Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 14
under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as being based on an
inadequate written description.
Moreover, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as being based
on an inadequate written description, because we find support
for the claim limitations in question in the last sentence on
page 7 of the original disclosure. That sentence indicates
that “the test/control section 44 must interpret the sequences
of character codes...” Since the test/control section 44 is
part of the Fiber Service Node, it is clear that the service
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007