Appeal No. 96-0550
Application 07/960,148
§ 112, first paragraph as being based on a specification which is
objected to for "failing to provide an enabling disclosure."
Claims 10, 29 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ott in view of Iino and Lasher.2
All the claims stand or fall together (Brief at page
7).
Rather than reiterate the entire arguments of the
appellants and the examiner in support of their respective
positions, reference is made to appellants' brief (Paper No. 19),
reply brief (Paper No. 22), supplement to appellants' brief
(Paper No. 25), the examiners answer (Paper No. 20), and
supplemental examiner's answer (Paper Nos. 23 and 26) for the
full exposition thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, we initially note that it is well settled that
the examiner has the initial burden of producing reasons that
would substantiate a rejection based on lack of enablement. See,
In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed.
Cir. 1993); In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ
The examiner relies on Gross for teaching that the double2
image problem is a long well recognized problem.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007