Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
elements) at the time the application was filed." The examiner
concludes (Answer, page 16) that the "interconnections and
interactions of the claimed components to perform the claimed
functions in combination is lacking from Appellant's
specification."
Appellant sets forth numerous general arguments not directed
to any particular claims or claim elements. Basically, we are
not persuaded by such general arguments about what the examiner
should have done, about perceived inconsistencies in the
rejection, and boilerplate statements of the law. What is
important is the merits of the particular written description and
enablement rejections. Nonetheless, as the majority of all of
the Briefs is directed to such generalities, we begin by
addressing some of the most prevalent general arguments. Then we
will address appellant's reading on the disclosure of the four
claims reproduced supra.
Appellant's General Arguments
Appellant argues (Brief, page 10) that the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, are non-critical "technical"
rejections and are "clearly improper." However, section 112 is a
statutory requirement of patentability which cannot be ignored.
Appellant contends (Brief, pages 11-14, and Reply Brief,
pages 78-80 and 108-109) that the § 112 rejections are based on
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007