Appeal No. 2003-1025
Application No. 09/224,918
added) Again, we find that Appellants' disclosure does not
recite a "given time" for the occurrence of the three sub-steps
at lines 8-11 of rejected claim 1.
Appellants also point out at page 9 of the brief that the
specification at page 10, line 20, through page 11, line 4,
discloses a process where the removal of data from the cache is
triggered at a given time and the given time is the time recited
in claim 1. We fully agree. However, the process at pages 10-11
of Appellants' specification is an alternative embodiment
directed to different subject matter than lines 8-11 of claim 1.
As such, we find this argument is not relevant to the claim
before us, and is thus not persuasive.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we will sustain
the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14-15, 17-
25, 28-36, and 41 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14-15, 17-25, 28-36, and 41 are not
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner that there is a serious problem with claim 1. However,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007