Appeal No. 2001-1312
Application No. 08/989,701
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence and
arguments relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that Appellants’ specification in this application describes the
claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we reverse.
As to the Examiner’s assertion of lack of enablement of
Appellants’ disclosure, we note that, in order to comply with the
enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
1 The Appeal Brief was filed March 1, 2000 (Paper No. 21). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated October 18, 2000 (Paper No. 24), a Reply Brief
was filed November 8, 2000 (Paper No. 25), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated November 30, 2000
(Paper No. 26).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007