Appeal No. 2006-0533
Application 09/838,420
be said of “the name” in claim 5, the claimed “a status value” in
claim 6, and the corresponding “the status value” in claim 7.
The reference of “said steps” in claim 8 is not recited in parent
independent claim 1 from which it directly depends. Claim 9
recites the display on a screen of “a computer system” but does
not specify that it is the claimed computer system in the
preamble of independent claim 1. It appears that this may be a
part of another unstated computer system.
Independent claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons
as set forth with respect to independent claim 1.
As to claim 11, this claim is indefinite because it
cannot be determined if it is to be construed as an independent
claim on its own or whether it is in fact merely a dependent
claim from claim 1. In the latter case, since independent
claim 1 is a method claim, on its face, its dependent claim 11
may be purported to comprise a structure claim. Therefore, it is
not clear whether claim 11 is in fact a method or an apparatus
claim. The claimed “medium” is merely stated to be “computer-
usable” and not actually used in a computer system. This
computer is not stated to be the computer system of the preamble
of claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007