Appeal Number: 2007-0133
Application Number: 10/223,466
The examiner has provided no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not know how to make and use the invention from the disclosure. The
specification is highly detailed and, as the examiner admits (Final Rejection 3),
there are many examples. The examiner further contends that specification does
not show how to make the chart personal. (Answer 4-5). The appellant responds
that personalization occurs as the operator manipulates the chart. (Reply Br. 4-5).
We agree that changing the aspect of a chart by modifying its presentation
according to personal criteria may characterize a chart as personal.
Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as not enabling a person of ordinary skill in
the art to make and use the claimed subject matter from the original disclosure.
Claims 27 through 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
The examiner contends the phrase “wave-like” is indefinite. (Final Rejection
3-4). The claims refer to crests and troughs in describing the wave-like entities. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a wave-like entity with
peaks and troughs would be represented by a figure resembling a wave with peaks
and troughs. Therefore, we find the examiner's arguments to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 27 through 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013