Ex parte THOMAS J. GREENBOWE et al. - Page 3

          Appeal No. 96-2865                                                          
          Application No. 08/081,561                                                  

               The reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of               
          anticipation is:                                                            
          Smith et al. (Smith), “The Acid Test: Five Years of Multimedia              
          Chemistry,” Special Issue IBM Multimedia, Supplement to T.H.E.              
          Journal, pp. 21-23, September 1991.                                         
               The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:                         
               a) claims 1 through 41 under 35 U.S.C.  112, first                    
          paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails to                 
          provide an adequate written description of the invention;                   
               b) claims 1 through 41 under 35 U.S.C.  112, second                   
          paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point            
          out and distinctly claim the subject matter the appellants regard           
          as the invention; and                                                       
               c) claims 1 through 31 and 33 through 41 under 35 U.S.C.               
           102(b) as being anticipated by Smith.                                     
               Reference is made to the appellants’ main and reply briefs             
          (Paper Nos. 6 and 8) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 7)             
          for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner             
          with regard to the propriety of these rejections.                           
               Before discussing the merits of the foregoing rejections, we           
          note that the appellants have raised as an issue in this appeal             
          the objection to the drawings under 35 CFR  1.83(a) which was              
          made by the examiner in the final rejection (see pages 70 through           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007