Appeal 2007-0288
Application 10/715,408
addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as
filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter
is not described in that application. This conclusion will result in
the rejection of the claims affected under 35 U.S.C.112, first
paragraph – description requirement, or denial of the benefit of the
filing date of a previously filed application, as appropriate.
See MPEP § 2163 for examination guidelines pertaining to the
written description requirement.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s)
contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such
a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the
inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention. The negative limitation “not created by a user” in all
independent claims 1, 6, 7, and 9-13 does not find express or implied
support in the original Specification including the material from parent
application 09/337,035.
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief including the definitions of virus
and Trojan horse dated in the year 2005 are not relevant to the understanding
of these terms at the time of the invention in June 1999 (Br. 6). We find
these definitions are silent as to their relationship to a user. Therefore,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. We similarly find the discussion of
the “unauthorized agent” silent as to a relationship to a “user” (Br. 3-6).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013