Appeal No. 1998-0694
Application No. 08/637,009
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of this application complies
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in support of the
invention as set forth in claims 22, 24-28 and 30-36. We are
also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the record
of this application does not support the examiner’s rejection
of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 22, 24-28
and 30-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based upon an
inadequate disclosure. This rejection is set forth in its
entirety as follows:
The claim phrase “which agglomeration
would occur in the absence of said
thermal oxide” is relevant terminology
which only has meaning in view of the
arguments of record with regard to the
prior art. There is believed to be no
basis in the original disclosure for
such relevant claim language.
Furthermore, the original disclosure
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007