Appeal No. 95-3565
Application 08/053,814
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite; and (3) under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by any one of the four references
listed above. We also note that the examiner has required
removal of certain material, added by amendment, that the
examiner considers new matter.
We reverse the rejections. As to the examiner’s
requirement for removing certain material from the disclosure, we
do not have jurisdiction and will not adjudicate the matter.
Such requirements are reviewable only by petition to the
Commissioner, not by appeal to the Board.
(1) Written description
The written description rejection appears to fuse
concepts of enablement and written description. However, the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains three separate and
distinct requirements for sufficiency of disclosure, i.e., the
written description, enablement and best mode requirements. See
In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977), In re Gay,
309 F.2d 769, 135 USPQ 311 (CCPA 1962).
The examiner states that the specification fails to
describe the recited “multiresonant vibrator having at least one
electromechanical transducer having a plurality of layers of
independently electrically addressable segments which receive
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007