Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
page 4, emphasis added]. Appellant asserts that the example does not set
anti-entity values for entities that were not presented to the user [id.,
emphasis added]. Appellant concludes that the example shows that
appellant had possession of the instant invention at the time of filing, noting
that if the example is practiced as described, the public would perform the
elements of claim 1 [id.].
The examiner responds that the specification does not provide support
for the determining how the dialog system interacts with the user, and does
not state that other anti-entity values are not set [answer, page 11].
The examiner points out, as an example, that altering the anti-entity
value of one word may affect the priorities of other words in the list [id.].
The examiner concludes that the instant specification fails to provide support
for the limitation: “without setting values for entities that were not
presented” [answer, page 11, cont’d page 12; see also claim 1].
We begin by noting that section 112, paragraph 1, of the Patent Act
states that the “specification shall contain a written description of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007