Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
overwrite the alarm indication displayed on the predetermined
portion of the screen so as to interfere with a process control
operator's ability to monitor the alarm indication and thereby
observe an occurrence of the alarm condition.
No prior art references of record are relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims.
Claims 48 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as
claiming an invention different from that disclosed in the
original patent.
Claims 48 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being non-enabled by the disclosure.
Claims 48 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as the specification as originally filed fails
to provide support for the invention as is now claimed.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 32,
mailed May 5, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 27,
filed February 4, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 34, filed June
28, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims and the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we will reverse all of the rejections
of claims 48 through 73.
The examiner (Answer, page 5) states that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007