Appeal No. 1997-2678
Application No. 08/347,270
added/amended features and corresponding text in the
specification as originally filed” [answer-page 4].
We have reviewed each and every claimed phrase objected
to by the examiner and we find that many of those terms have
clear meanings in the art which would have been understood by
the artisan as being disclosed, even if not in those exact
words, within the specification as filed. For example, terms
such as “directions,” “storing,” “fetching,” etc. are terms of
art which have clear support in the specification. Sequences
“including directions” clearly refers to the description
whereby communications with an applicant for a loan is
performed through a video screen and instructions and requests
by a simulated loan officer give “directions” to an applicant.
Memory shown in the drawings provides support for “storing.”
The flowcharts of the drawings clearly provide support for
fetching additional inquiring sequences.
Without going into each and every one of the claimed
phrases objected to by the examiner, suffice it to say that we
agree with and adopt appellant’s arguments at pages 4-18 of
the principal brief wherein appellant indicates exactly where
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007