Appeal No. 1997-0601
Application 08/161,878
over Ohta under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 1 to 3, 6, 12 and 16
also stand rejected over Ohta and Alonas under 35 U.S.C. §
103. Finally, claims 12 to 14 stand rejected over Ohta and
Schovanec under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs.
We affirm.
Regarding the requirement for enablement, the test is
whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed
invention from the disclosure coupled with information known
2A reply brief was filed as paper no. 12 and its entry
was approved by the Examiner [paper no. 13] without any
further response by the Examiner.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007