Appeal No. 1998-0632
Application 08/301,812
presented claims here are broader than the claims in the
parent patent and that they recite that an action station
creates a dynamic state.
The filing of the second terminal disclaimer by
appellants as the second advisory action in the application
file so indicates appears to obviate the concerns of the
examiner with respect to the broader interpretation that may
be attributed to the present claims on appeal. As it is1
clear from the present specification as filed, appellants do
not intend and they are not therefore entitled anyway to the
effective filing date of their parent application/patent.
In light of the above-noted precedent, there is no
question that the present application on its filing date
provides adequate support within the written description
portion of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, for the presently claimed subject
matter of an "action station" in each pending claim on appeal.
Therefore, to the extent the examiner's rejection may be
interpreted as asserting there is no support for the claimed
1The record does not reflect, however, that the terminal
disclaimer has been appropriately recorded.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007