Appeal No. 2001-0041
Application No. 08/661,899
maintenance. Since the recording of maintenance data is automated, the “recording
step” is performed by a service providing entity that is not the “specific entity”
associated with the vehicle, such as the owner of the vehicle. We thus sustain the
section 103 rejection of claims 33 and 34 as unpatentable over the combination of
Ryan, Rovin, and Stewart.
New Ground of Rejection -- 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
We enter the following new ground of rejection against the claims in accordance
with 37 CFR § 1.196(b): Claims 19, 26-28, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the invention.
Claim 19 is drawn to a “machine maintenance data card” comprising, inter alia,
“maintenance scheduling means for indicating whether regularly scheduled
maintenance has been performed on said at least one specific machine responsive to
said permanent history.” The “permanent history” is maintained in “maintenance event
data files.”
Appellant’s “Summary of Invention” in the Brief does not explain what structure in
the specification corresponds to the claimed “maintenance scheduling means.” Cf. 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(5) [“Appellant's brief.”] “Summary of invention. A concise explanation
of the invention defined in the claims involved in the appeal, which shall refer to the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007