Appeal No. 1997-4093
Application No. 08/115,209
The rejections of claims 1 through 6 and 10 under the
first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 are reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 through 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is sustained as to claims 1 through 3 and 10, and is
reversed as to claims 4 through 6.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection
of claims 1 through 6 and 10, this rejection is reversed
because it is patently clear from claim 1 that the “last named
color density difference curves” are the preceding “color
density difference curves” that immediately follow the phrase
“the improvement comprising.”
Turning next to the lack of enablement rejection of
claims 1 through 6 and 10, we find that the examiner has not
satisfied the initial burden of setting forth a reasonable
basis for questioning the enablement of the disclosed and
claimed invention . For example, the examiner has never2
explained why formulae, algorithms, and flowcharts are needed
in light of the explanation of color density difference curves
in the admitted prior art to Fursich and Thurm. Even if such
2 See In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232
(CCPA 1973).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007