Appeal No. 2000-0396
Application No. 08/527,886
disappear and thereby interfere with a process control operator's
ability to monitor the alarm indication. In other words, like
claim 6, process control information is displayed in a
predetermined portion and the application data is displayed in
such a way that process control information is not overwritten.
Consequently, we find that claims 48, 52, 58, 59, 66, 71, 72, and
the claims dependent therefrom, claims 49 through 51 and 53
through 57 claim the same invention as that disclosed in the
original patent.
Claim 70 differs slightly from the claims discussed above in
that the alarm indication is displayed on "a first portion,"
which is not specified as "a predetermined portion." Then, like
claim 6, the application information is displayed such that the
alarm indication does not disappear from the display screen and
thereby interfere with a process control operator's ability to
monitor the alarm indication. Whether the first portion is
"predetermined" or not, the invention is in the display of the
application information such that the alarm indication is kept
from disappearing from the screen, which is the same in claim 70
as it is in claim 6. Therefore, claim 70 is directed to the same
invention as that disclosed in the original patent.
Regarding the enablement rejection of claims 48 through 73,
the examiner states (Answer, page 7) that the specification is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007