Appeal No. 1999-1583
Application No. 08/377,390
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. The
final rejection contended that there was insufficient
disclosure in the specification to support the claimed feature
of “...a monitor process...independently of monitor
process...” That is, the examiner was contending that there
was an inadequate written description to support that which
was now claimed because the specification recited a local and
a global monitor and “there is no mention of these processes
being independent of each other or of the service process.”
With regard to the second paragraph rejection, the examiner
contended that “it is not clear what exactly is being claimed;
the recitation suggest [sic] that the monitor is independent
of itself, or even the other processes, as such it is vague
and indefinite” Final rejection, Paper No. 9-page 2].
Appellants apparently are convinced that the rejection of
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been overcome by an amendment
of April 29, 1997 [see page 2 of the brief]. However, the
4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007