Appeal No. 2001-1911
Application No. 08/825,492
Fig. 2 indicates in the sentence bridging pages 7 and 8 of the
specification as filed that it may contain the number of partial
cells contained in the merged cell as well as delineation
information indicating the boundaries of the respective original
cells in the final merged cell. Correspondingly, the sentence
bridging pages 8 and 9 of the specification as filed specifically
states that the “VCI of the merged cell . . . could be used to
represent the merging method.” Corresponding teachings are also
found in the middle paragraph at page 10 of the specification as
filed as well as originally filed claims 3 and 12. Thus, it is
readily apparent to us that the artisan would have well
appreciated that appellants contemplated that the header of the
claimed ATM cells would have included an indication of the
merging method to the extent broadly recited in independent
claims 1, 14 and 21 on appeal. As such, the examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as to this feature of all
claims on appeal must be reversed.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 21, 22 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, we will sustain this rejection for the reasons
set forth by the examiner in the final rejection and answer. The
examiner’s initial reasoning in the final rejection characterized
the subject matter of independent claim 21 as encompassing a mere
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007