Appeal No. 1995-4405
Application No. 08/083,680
For the above reasons, we find the examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of lack of an adequate written description or an enabling disclosure. The rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 26-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
OTHER MATTERS
The examiner should consider whether one or more of pending claims 26-30 in this case should
be rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over one or
more of the claims granted in its parent Application 07/806,495, now issued U.S. Patent No.
5,223,433.
REVERSED
MARY F. DOWNEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007