Appeal No. 1999-2304
Application 08/667,242
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
The rejection asserts that the specification does not
provide written description support for the recitation “remote
independent public directory services having names and
electronic conference connection addresses of a plurality of
persons” in each of the independent claims. The examiner
particularly questions the “public” of public directory
services [answer, pages 4-5]. Appellants argue that the
recitation in question clearly appears in the specification at
several locations except for the term “remote” [brief, page
9]. Appellants note, however, that Figure 1 of the
application clearly shows that the directory services 108 are
separate or remote from the execution unit 104. The examiner
responds that there are two meanings for the term “public” and
the specification does not support the meaning argued by
appellants [answer, pages 9-10]. Appellants respond that the
disclosed use of the Deutches Telecom T-Online directory
service is clearly a remote independent public directory
service as claimed [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by appellants for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007