Appeal No. 95-0976
Application No. 07/936,558
position taken by the appellants, and that undue
experimentation would not be required for one skilled in the
art to practice the claimed invention. Thus, the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is considered to be
effectively rebutted and is reversed.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Schmatz or '310 Pat. in combination with '067 Pat. We first
note
that the Examiner's Answer (Paper # 14) fails to provide an
explanation of the teachings of each reference relied upon in
the obviousness rejection. A previous rejection is not
incorporated by reference. The secondary reference, i.e. '067
Pat., is not mentioned in the Examiner's Answer with the
exception of its inclusion in the list of references on page 3
and the statement of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on page
6. Pages 6 and 7 of the Examiner's Answer respond to points
raised by appellants in the Brief with respect to the
obviousness rejection. Page 10 of the Examiner's Answer
contains the following sentence under the heading "(11)
Response to argument":
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007