Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
function to retrieve characters from the keyboard as part of the editor
program, which is considered to be "controlling software to input data into
the system." Thus, this reason for the rejection of claim 14 is reversed.
2. Groups 2, 12, 30, 36, and 37
As to group 2 (claims 37, 44, 45, 57, and 58), the Examiner finds that
the limitations of "inserting each datum of said data in a different respective
location of the memory" (claim 37), "instructions executable to insert each
datum of said data in a different respective location of the memory"
(claim 44; claim 57 is similar), and "said respective location for the insertion
of each datum within the memory is selected by the operator with the
manually-operable input device" (claims 45 and 58) are without written
description support because "no selectivity of the location of memory by the
operator is disclosed (see col. 5, lines 17-18, character deletion or line
deletion is performed)" (Final Rejection 25 ¶ II.3(B)) and "any limitation
beyond character deletion is considered new matter" (id.). Basically, the
Examiner finds that the '604 patent does not support a general purpose editor
that is capable of inserting between characters.
As to group 12 (claims 44, 45, and 58), the Examiner finds that there
is no written description for the limitation that the "location for the insertion
of each datum within the memory is selected by the operator" (claims 45 and
58) (Final Rejection 33 ¶ II.3(H)). We note that claim 44 does not recite that
the location is selected by the operator.
As to group 30 (claim 71), the Examiner finds that the limitation of "a
cursor indicative of the buffer location to receive the next insertion of an
input datum" lacks written description support because the '604 patent only
126
Page: Previous 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013