Appeal No. 1996-3541
Application 08/275,307
REJECTIONS UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 30 through 35 are rejected under a written description portion of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. These claims were new claims entered by amendment
on May 15, 1995. Because the programmability feature of independent claims 30 and 33
is stated in the claims to relate to microinstructions, and because the original filed
specification, drawings and original claims do not indicate programmability of the static
RAM 14 at the level of microinstructions, the rejection of claims 30 through 35 is
appropriate. There is no evidence of record in the application papers filed according to
the filing date of appellant contemplating the use of microinstructions as a type of
instruction that is programmed into static RAM 14 according to the general teachings of
the specification and requirements of the claims.
Claims 1, 11, 23, 24, 25, 28 through 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Andersen alone. The teachings at column 1, lines 29
through 38 and column 2, lines 27 through 48 indicate first that the programmable
controller 12 in Figure 1 controls an apparatus and/or process related thereto to the extent
this feature is recited in any of the listed claims. More importantly, however, these noted
portions of columns 1 and 2 indicate that another computer, such as personal computer
10, provides programming of the programmable controller 12 itself. For this to occur, we
find that the structure within the programmable controller 12
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007