Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
the adequacy of the disclosure. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d
1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982); In re Angstadt, 537
F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976); and In re
Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA 1975).
The Examiner has questioned the sufficiency of
Appellants’ disclosure in describing the claimed operations of
determining that a communication link is needed, generating a
proxy object, and emulating a target object. The Examiner
concludes (Answer, pages 5-7) that, since the details of these
operations are not provided, it would require undue
experimentation by the skilled artisan to implement each of
these operations.
After careful review of the arguments of record, however,
we are in agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the
Briefs. As pointed out by Appellants (Brief, page 4), the
specification at pages 11 and 12 provides a description of the
determination of the requirement for a communication link. We
further agree with Appellants that Appendix A to the
specification, beginning at the bottom of page 16, describes
in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007