Appeal No. 1996-3670 Page 6
Application No. 08/217,063
“‘interrelationships’ are, inherently contained within the
claims." (Appeal Br. at 23.)
Here, claims 3-6 specify downloading software from some
computers to other computers. We are persuaded that one skilled
in the art would understand that “if a computer downloads an
update from another computer, some ‘interrelationship’ exists."
(Appeal Br. at 23.) Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claims 3, 5, and 6 as indefinite. Regarding claim 4, we must
still address the fourth point of contention.
Fourth, the examiner asserts, “[w]ith respect to claims 4
and 7, the specifications of ‘without intervention of a user,’
and ‘without significant input from a user’ do not positively
limit the invention as they merely state what the invention is
not, rather than what the invention is.” (Examiner's Answer
at 4.) The appellant argues, “the mere presence of a negative
limitation does not invalidate an entire claim." (Appeal Br.
at 24.)
“[N]egative limitations, per se, do not necessarily fail to
define the invention. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007