Appeal No. 95-3598
Application 08/125,671
through 17 and 21 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, these
references do not supply the deficiencies noted above with regard
to the Fisher publication.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has failed
to make out even a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter of claims 1, 4 and 7 through 25 on appeal.
To summarize our decision, we note that the examiner's
rejection of appealed claims 1, 4 and 7 through 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on lack of an enabling
disclosure has been reversed, but that the rejection of claims 1,
4, 7 through 10 and 11 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, based on the lack of a written description supporting
the invention as now claimed has been sustained. The examiner's
rejections of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have not
been sustained.
It follows from the foregoing that the decision of the
examiner is affirmed-in-part.
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007