Appeal No. 2001-1087
Application 08/660,616
Appellants argue (substitute brief, page 7) that they
“acquiesce in the rejection of Claims 19 and 20.” In view of
appellants’ acquiescence, the rejection of claims 19 and 20 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is sustained pro forma.
In response to the lack of written description
rejection of claims 1 and 9, appellants argue (substitute brief,
page 7) that:
The specification makes clear that a project
may be approved and that certain actions
occur after a project has been approved.
(p. 15, l. 22). Work requests typically
come from customers. (p. 17, l. 21-30).
Those providing services in response to a
request typically bid to provide the ser-
vices. (p. 3, l. 28-p. 4, l. 6). One of
ordinary skill reading the application would
understand that Applicants disclose that
enhancements and maintenance will not be
performed if the bid on the project is not
approved and that the focus of that decision
is the total enhancement cost or total main-
tenance cost. Providing cost estimates is
the focus of the invention. One of ordinary
skill understands that such estimates are
necessarily used to make decisions as to
whether to approve or reject bids by service
providers. Thus, the added elements to
Claims 1 and 9 are either explicitly or
inherently disclosed.
We agree with the appellants that action will be taken
after the total maintenance and the total enhancement costs are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007