Appeal No. 1998-0632
Application 08/301,812
OPINION
Our consideration of the brief and reply brief along with
the answer leads us to conclude that there appears not to have
been a meeting of the minds as to the nature of the issues
involved on appeal. To the extent appellants may have been
prejudiced by this, the entry of the reply brief appears to
have cured such a possibility. To simplify our consideration
here, however, having considered the views expressed in the
answer, which make reference to the first office action and,
by implication, the final rejection, we construe the issues as
involving both enablement and written description rejections
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as applied to the
claimed action station (claims 45 through 53), the prediction
feature (claims 45 through 50) and the correlation feature
(claims 51 through 53). This rather complicated situation
presents the most comprehensive view to us of the issues on
appeal. In any event, we reverse the rejection of each of
them as explained herein.
At the outset we note that the examiner's reasoning for
lack of "support" for the claimed invention herein implicitly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007