Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
286 through 288, 297 through 304, 307, 310, 311, 314, 317, 320,
323, 324, 327, 330, 331, 334, 336 through 338, 341 through 346,
349, 351 through 353, 356 through 361, 364, 366 through 368, 371,
374 through 377, 379, 382, 384, 389, 390, and 392 through 395
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
based upon a lack of written description and also as being based
on a lack of enabling disclosure. 2
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 48,
mailed September 24, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Appeal Brief
(Paper No. 41, filed June 30, 2000), Supplemental Appeal Brief
(Paper No. 46, filed January 8, 2001), Errata to the Appeal Brief
and Supplemental Appeal Brief (Paper No. 51, filed February 2,
2001), and Reply Brief (Paper No. 52, filed November 26, 2001)
for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant states on
page 9 of the Appeal Brief that the claims do not stand or fall
together. Appellant further states (id.) that the claims are
separately argued. However, section 8.9 of the Supplemental
Brief entitled "Separate Arguments for Separate Patentability of
2 We note that although the examiner includes claims 196 through 199,
207 through 210, 255 through 258, 305, 318, 332, 335, 347, 350, 362, 365, 383,
and 386 in the statement of the rejection, appellant states on pages 8-9 of
the supplemental appeal brief that these claims are among those not appealed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007