Appeal No. 95-2440 Application 07/705,726 an adequate written description of the invention, including how to make and/or use the invention, in the specification; (2) Claims 72 through 92 under 35 U.S.C. � 112, first paragraph, as lacking descriptive support for the invention as is now claimed in the original specification; (3) Claims 46 through 50, 52, 57 through 61, 63 and 72 through 98 under 35 U.S.C. � 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as their invention; (4) Claims 46 through 50, 52, 57 through 61, 63 and 72 through 98 under 35 U.S.C. � 102(a) as being anticipated by appellants' admissions on pages 19 through 21 of the specification; and (5) Claims 46 through 50, 52, 57 through 61, 63 and 72 through 98 under 35 U.S.C. � 103 as being unpatentable over Curran in view of Wehner, Potts and Wolf. Having reviewed the entire record, including the specification, claims, prior art, appellants' brief and reply brief, and the examiner's answer, we shall: 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007