Appeal No. 1997-1351
Application 08/127,924
Original claim 17 presents express support for the
limitation of claims 35 and 44. We also refer to the
specification, page 7, lines 14-21, which are not addressed
by the Examiner. We conclude that claims 35 and 44 are not
misdescriptive. The rejection of claims 35 and 44 is
reversed.
Claim 37
The Examiner considers claims 19 and 37 inconsistent
because the bodies of claims 19 and 37 are the same, while
the preamble of claim 37 is directed to a "central
processing unit for a process control system" and the
preamble of claim 19 recites a "process control system"
(FR4): "It would appear that the apparatus in the body of
the claims cannot be both a central processing unit and a
process control system."
Appellants argue that "the claimed features could be
included in either a central processing unit or processed
control system as claimed in the separate independent
claims" (Br8).
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not
comment on the fact that the bodies in both claims 19 and 37
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007