Appeal No. 2001-0041
Application No. 08/661,899
for indicating” -- may be in any sense “responsive” to data per se -- responsive to a
“permanent history of maintenance event information.”
Claims 26-28 incorporate the limitations of claim 19, and claim 41 incorporates
the limitations of claim 40. We therefore conclude that claims 19, 26-28, 40, and 41 fail
to reasonably apprise those of skill in the art of their scope, and hold that the claims fail
to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 29, 33-35, and 42-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ryan, Rovin, and Stewart is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 19, 26-28, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McGrath and Eisenmann is reversed.
Claims 19, 26-28, 40, and 41 are newly rejected by us under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, "A new ground of rejection shall not be
considered final for purposes of judicial review."
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options
with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings
(§ 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claim:
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007