Ex parte BRIAN E. FITZGERALD et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-0814                                                          
          Application 08/066,331                                                      


               No references are relied upon by the examiner in support of            
          the rejection.                                                              
               Claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                 
           112, first paragraph, as being based on a disclosure that fails           
          to adequately teach how to make and use the invention, i.e.,                
          fails to provide an enabling disclosure.  The examiner states:              
               . . . [T]he specification fails to describe the                        
               structure of the locking mechanism in sufficient detail                
               such that one of ordinary skill in the art can make                    
               and/or use the invention.  The structural relationship                 
               between the locking mechanism and the body is not                      
               sufficiently clear to adequately teach one of ordinary                 
               skill in the art how to make and/or use the invention.                 
               [answer, page 3]                                                       
               In responding to appellants’ arguments, the examiner adds              
          the following comments:                                                     
                    Because the examiner is personally unaware of any                 
               locking mechanism which functions as does Appellant’s                  
               [sic, Appellants’] and because the examiner has been                   
               unable in his search to uncover any references which                   
               disclose a locking mechanism which functions as does                   
               Appellant’s [sic] and because Appellant [sic] has                      
               provided no evidence to demonstrate that one having                    
               ordinary skill in the art would have found the locking                 
               mechanism for practicing the claimed locking steps to                  
               be obvious, the specification fails to provide an                      
               enabling disclosure.                                                   
               . . . [W]hile . . . the specification may explain the                  
               general functional relationship between the locking                    
               mechanism and the body, they fail to demonstrate to one                
               having ordinary skill in the art how to obtain this                    
               functional relationship.  That is, the structure of the                
               locking mechanism contained within body 25 is not clear                
               or obvious from these portions of the specification.                   
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007