Appeal No. 2000-1473 Page 9
Application No. 08/765,169
Furthermore, it is our view that it would not require
undue experimentation to practice the invention as set forth
in the claims under appeal for the reasons set forth by the
appellants in the brief (pp. 3-7) and reply brief (pp. 1-4).
In addition, contrary to the position of the examiner (answer,
p. 4), it is our opinion that one skilled in the art would
have been able to provide any necessary seals to the storage
devices 20 and the body 35 of the selection means 31 to permit
operation of the claimed device. Thus, we conclude that one
skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention
from the disclosure without undue experimentation.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 14 to 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is reversed.
REMAND
We remand this application to the examiner to determine
whether or not claims 1 to 23 are rejectable under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007