Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
a) claims 11, 12, 14-16, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails to
comply with the enablement requirement of this section of the
statute.
b) claims 1-10, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Metcalf et al.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 10) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 18) and the appellant's brief and reply brief (Paper
Nos. 17 and 19) .2
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
a) Claims 21 and 22:
Claims 21 and 22 require that an oscillator be connected to
a conductor. The examiner's position is that the term
2The examiner's answer is identified in the upper right
hand corner of page 1 as Paper No. 19. That designation appears
erroneous because there is no physical paper entered in the file
as Paper No. 18 and appellants’ brief and reply brief are marked
as Paper Nos. 17 and 19, respectively. Furthermore, in the table
of contents of appellants’ application, Paper No. 18 is
identified as the "Examiner's Answer".
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007