Appeal No. 96-2518
Application No. 08/040,053
would have had any difficulty whatsoever in evaluating
messages by comparing codes received from a fault location
with stored data. The display of data as a result of such a
comparison and zooming in on the display to show greater
detail would also have been well within the skill of the
artisan in this complex art. We find no need for a “computer
program, detail circuitry, or flow-charts,” mentioned by the
examiner [Answer-page 3] as an apparent necessity for
overcoming a charge of insufficient disclosure. The
operations recited and the results sought by the instant
claimed subject matter are, in our view, of such a
straightforward variety that no specific program, flow chart
or circuitry would have been needed by the artisan in order to
practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Accordingly, the examiner has not raised a reasonable
challenge, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
With regard to a lack of support under the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner
alleges that there is no support in the disclosure as filed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007