Appeal No. 95-3888
Application No. 08/l05,244
nonenabling disclosure and being vague and indefinite. 2
Claims 1 through 3 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated, with McMahan being applied
against claims 1 and 2 and Pilarcik being applied against
claims 1 and 3.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1 through 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as relying on a
nonenabling disclosure.
The examiner contends that a skilled artisan would not be
enabled, from the instant specification, and without undue
experimentation, to make and use the claimed invention.
Specifically, the examiner states that the drawings show blank
boxes with little or no disclosure of how each of these means
might be constructed.
2We note that the answer never explicitly recites
claims 1 through 3 as standing rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, but it is clear from the final rejection,
from appellant’s brief, and from statements in the answer,
including the response to appellant’s arguments, that this
rejection has been applied and is before us on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007