Appeal No. 95-3598
Application 08/125,671
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
7, mailed March 16, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 6, filed
February 24, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 9, filed May 15,
1995) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review we have reached the determinations which follow.
Looking to the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we understand
this rejection to be based on both lack of enablement and on the
lack of a written description to support the invention as now
claimed. With regard to the first of these grounds of rejection,
we observe that the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires,
inter alia, that the specification of a patent (or an applica-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007