Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
This reason for the rejections of claims 37, 44, 45, 57, 58, 71, 81,
and 83, is reversed.3
3. Groups 3, 5, 20, and 29
As to group 3 (claims 38, 46, 50, and 59), the Examiner finds that the
limitations of "instructions executable to enter a body of initial data into the
system for storage in said memory" and "instructions executable after input
of said additional data into the system to modify the initial stored data in
accordance with the additional data" are without written description support
(Final Rejection 25-6 ¶ II.3(C)). The Examiner finds that the only disclosed
"modification" of data is when the editor replaces a "pause mark" with a
"blank," '604 patent, col. 5, lines 37-45, i.e., the editor is limited to entering
characters. Thus, the Examiner finds that "there is no modification of the
initial stored data in accordance with the additional data being performed in
the disclosure of the '604' patent" (emphasis omitted) (Final Rejection 26).
The Examiner feels that Patent Owner is attempting to "morph" a "compiler
line editor" into a general "word processor" (Final Rejection 26).
As to group 5 (claims 38, 46, 50, and 59), the Examiner essentially
relies on the same reasoning as for group 3 (Final Rejection 27 ¶ II.3(E)).
As to group 20 (claim 60), the Examiner finds that the limitation of
"an input routine to enter data into said buffer" and "instructions executable
to process said data after the data has been entered into the buffer by said
input routine and while the data remains stored in the buffer" are without
written description support because "there is no input routine in the '604'
3 Because many claims are rejected for two or more reasons, we wait
until the end to summarize which claims are rejected.
129
Page: Previous 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013