Appeal No. 97-0750
Application 08/329,219
Claim 6 stands additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was
not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one
skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and/or use the
invention.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 7, mailed August 30, 1996) for the examiner's full reasoning
in support of the above-noted rejections and to appellant's brief
(Paper No. 6, filed July 17, 1996) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the issues raised in this appeal has
included a careful assessment of appellant's specification and
claims, the applied prior art references and the respective
positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have come to the conclusion, for
the reasons which follow, that the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
In addition, we will also not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007