Appeal 2007-1200
Application 09/900,251
(Answer 5-6). Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, the Specification actually
provides an enabling description of the claim limitations the Examiner cites as
lacking from the Specification (Findings of Fact 1-8).
The Examiner has not set forth a reasonable explanation as to why he
believes that the scope of protection provided by claims 1-40 is not adequately
enabled by the description of the invention provided in the Specification. He thus
failed to meet his burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation of non-
enablement. Accordingly, we reverse the enablement rejection of claims 1-40.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph is reversed.
REVERSED
vsh
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013