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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007