Appeal 2007-0558
Application 09/940,462
from the IP network encoded according to the SOAP protocol
and of encoding according to the SOAP protocol messages to
be sent on the IP network.
Claims 18 and 19 recite similar limitations. Considering all these
limitations, the three independent claims require a WEB service or a WEB
client to interact with an automation equipment's program, decode messages
received via an IP network and encoded according to SOAP, and to encode
messages that are to be sent via the IP network according to SOAP.
IV. SUPPORT
"The 35 U.S.C. 102(e) critical reference date of . . . U.S. application
publications . . . entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional
application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is the filing date of the provisional
application with certain exceptions if the provisional application(s) properly
supports the subject matter relied upon to make the rejection in compliance
with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. M.P.E.P § 2136.03.III (8th ed., rev. 3,
Aug. 2005).5 "[T]he test for sufficiency of support . . . is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon 'reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject
matter.'" Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575,
227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
5 We cite to the version of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure in
effect at the time of the Examiner's Answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013