Appeal No. 1997-1351
Application 08/127,924
are directed to the "central unit." A "process control
system" as recited in claim 19 is inclusive of a "central
processing unit for a process control system" in claim 37.
We see nothing inconsistent or indefinite about claims 19 or
37.
The Examiner also rejects claim 37 for the same reasons
stated with respect to the rejection of claim 19 because the
bodies of the claims are the same. For the reasons stated
in the analysis of claim 19, we conclude that the Examiner
erred.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 37
is reversed.
Patentability
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together with
independent claims 19 and 37, which stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) as being anticipated by Petty.
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention."
- 19 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007