Appeal No. 1999-0928
Application No. 08/334,952
(1) the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. § 101, for failing to
provide an enabling disclosure due to the lack of utility and
operativeness (Answer, pages 5 and 13);
(2) the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite (Answer, page 11);
(3) claims 1, 2, 6-12, 14-18, 21-24, 27, 33, 34 and 37 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Horvath
(id.);
(4) the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Pons in combination with Spaepen and
the admitted prior art (as evidenced by Mazur, Saito, Greenberg,
or Suzuki, as disclosed on page 10 of the specification)(id.);
and
(5) claims 1, 2, 6-12, 14-22, 33, 34, 36 and 37 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Timewell in
combination with either Sobieralski or Pons (Answer, page 12).
We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections on appeal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007