Appeal No. 95-2440
Application 07/705,726
(1) Reverse the rejection of claims 46 through 50, 52,
57 through 61, 63 and 72 through 92 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, based on lack of an adequate written
description of the invention, including how to make and/or use
the invention, in the specification;
(2) Reverse the rejection of claims 87, 97 and 98 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, based on the indefiniteness
of the claim language "appreciable intensity";
(3) Affirm the rejection of claims 75 and 83 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, based on the indefiniteness of
the claim language as a whole due to the term "in turn";
(4) Reverse the rejection of claims 46 through 50, 52,
57 through 61, 63 and 72 through 76 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the disclosures of Curran, Wehner, Potts and Wolf; and
(5) Remand the application to the examiner to make
appropriate findings facts and explanations for the remaining
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs,
§ 102 (a) and § 103.
Our reasoning for the above determinations follows.
The examiner has rejected claims 46 through 50, 52, 57
through 61, 63 and 72 through 92 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007