Appeal No. 2000-0591
Application No. 08/311,291
According to the examiner, “[t]he rejection over Hannah, which has a priority date
of 1/26/84[,] turns on whether applicants are entitled to benefit of their British priority
dates.”8 Answer, page 16. “That in turn requires enablement, which as set forth above
is lacking for such scope, for these claims. Thus, both rejections turn on the same
issue.” Id.
For the reasons set forth above, we find that appellants’ disclosure is enabling
for these claims, therefore, according to the examiner, appellants enjoy the benefit of
their British priority date, and Hannah is not prior art to the present application.
Accordingly, the rejection of the claims as unpatentable over Hannah is reversed.
CONCLUSION
On consideration of the record, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the
rejection of claims 27, 28, 43, 46, 51, 57-60, 99-103 and 109-120 under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, as well as the rejection of claims 27, 28, 43, 51, 57-60,
99-103 and 109-120 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
8 The present application claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of the March 30,
1984 filing date of U.K. Application No. 8408322.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007