Appeal No. 1998-0613
Application 08/554,998
activation. Accordingly we find that the specification does
support the claim language, and meets the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Additionally we note that original claim 52 states in
part, “e. a means for assessing if said address is unique to
said I/O board wherein said means for assessing comprises said
command-response sequence.” (Emphasis added.) Again we find
a combination of command and address being applied to the I/O
board. Original claims are considered to be part of the
original disclosure for written description purposes.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that there is support in
the specification for the language in the claims.
Consequently we will not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, rejection.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 76 through
83 is reversed.
REVERSED
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007