Appeal No. 2003-1025
Application No. 09/224,918
Throughout Appellants' arguments they refer to the rejection
as a "Nonenablement Assertion." This is not appropriate. The
rejection is for failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Therefore, throughout Appellants' arguments, we
will read "Nonenablement" as "Failure to Comply with the Written
Description Requirement."
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner asserts at
page 4 of the answer that the specification as filed shows (A),
"[one] step does not occur as the result of the other, as
claimed." The Examiner also points out (B), "[t]hese two
processes operate on some of the same data, but they are
[otherwise] separate processes that occur independently of each
other." The two steps or processes being referred to by the
Examiner are found at claim 1, lines 7-13 and lines 14-17
respectively.
Appellants argue at page 6 of the brief, "[a]s such, these
two (2) processes are not 'separate processes that occur
independently of each other' as alleged." Rather, they "are two
processes in a single method." We find no conflict between what
Appellants are arguing and what the Examiner has pointed out at
(B) above. They are both saying the same thing. However,
Appellants fail to address (A) above. Claim 1 requires that,
"upon receipt of an indication from a user . . . checking . . .
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007