Appeal No. 2001-2407
Application No. 09/154,703
With regard to claim 13, the examiner contends there is no
adequate disclosure of how the listed dimensions are provided.
To the extent appellants and the examiner are arguing the
propriety of a restriction requirement and the claims included in
the elected species pursuant to the restriction requirement,
again, we leave this petitionable matter between appellants and
the examiner. It has no place on appeal to this Board.
However, as to the merits of the rejections, our view is as
follows:
With regard to claim 10, this claim requires both a step
formed in the slider and a positioning member mounted on a flat
surface of the slider. It is our view, that the examiner has
established a reasonable basis for an enablement rejection based
on no disclosed embodiment showing both a step and a positioning
member.
Appellants are correct in their assessment that Figure 10A
clearly shows a positioning member (133). However, this
embodiment of the invention does not show a step and it is
unclear how an artisan would make and use an embodiment of the
invention wherein the slider has a flat surface upon which a
positioning member is located while, at the same time, including
a step in the slider. Since no disclosed embodiment depicts
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007