Appeal No. 1998-2392
Application No. 08/338,917
Claims 1 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based upon a specification
which fails to adequately teach how to make and/or use the
invention.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and re-
sponse to the argument presented by appellants appears in the
answer (Paper No. 20), while the complete statement of appel-2
lants’ argument can be found in the brief filed December 15,
1997 (Paper No. 19).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issue raised in
this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appel- lants’ specification and claims, and the respective
2On page 3 of the answer, the examiner lists respective
documents to ROLANDO and KRUEGER. However, the rejection does
not refer to these documents. It appears, therefore, that
their inclusion in the answer was inadvertent, and we shall,
accordingly, not make further mention thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007