Appeal 2007-0928
Application 09/943,964
stage component “blocks or disrupts” the flow of a data message, not
whether the message flows “entirely through” a software stage component.
In response, Appellants call attention (Br. 17; Reply Br. 2) to the
illustration in Figure 6 of their drawings in conjunction with the description
at page 23, lines 11-23 of the Specification. We agree with Appellants that
the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that by detecting the presence
of a data message at the input of a software stage and by then detecting
whether the message appears at the software stage output, a determination
can be made as to whether the message entirely flows through the software
stage. In our opinion, under the factual situation presented in the present
case, the statutory written description requirement has been satisfied since
Appellants were clearly in possession of the invention at the time of filing of
the application. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-21
under the “written description” clause of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C
§ 112.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C § 112, first
paragraph, rejection based on the “enabling” clause of the statute. We note
that, while the Examiner’s statement of the grounds of rejection includes
assertions that Appellants’ disclosure is not enabling with respect to the
feature of detecting flow of data through software stages, the Examiner has
never specifically indicated how Appellants’ disclosure would not be
enabling with regard to such feature. We find no basis for the Examiner’s
conclusion that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been able to
implement Appellants’ described system which detects software stage
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013