Appeal No. 2001-1087
Application 08/660,616
Reference is made to the substitute brief (paper
number 19), the reply brief (paper number 21) and the answer
(paper number 20) for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before
us, and we will sustain the lack of written description rejec-
tion, and reverse all of the prior art rejections of record.
Turning first to the lack of written description rejec-
tion, the examiner states (answer, page 4) that the originally
filed disclosure lacks written description support for the
steps of “performing maintenance on the software application in
response to the total maintenance cost not exceeding a desired
threshold” (claim 1), “performing enhancements on the software
application in response to the total enhancement cost not
exceeding a desired threshold” (claim 9), “developing a
replacement software application in response to the total
enhancement cost exceeding a desired threshold” (claim 19), and
“developing a replacement software application in response to the
total maintenance cost exceeding a desired threshold” (claim 20).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007