Appeal No. 96-2518
Application No. 08/040,053
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as relying on a non-enabling disclosure and
on an inadequate written description.
Claims 1 through 20 stand further rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Walter
with regard to claims 1 through 5, 7 through 18 and 20, adding
Woods with regard to claims 6 and 19.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
After careful consideration of the evidence before us, we
will sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 but we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Turning first to the non-enablement rejection, the
examiner contends that the
specific manner in which the processor evaluates
messages transmitted by the automation system by
comparing a code of the messages indicating a
location of a fault in the automation system with
the stored planning and design data of the
automation system, and as a result of such
determination or evaluation, displaying the results
coarsely, and then in more detail is not readily
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007