Appeal No. 96-0885
Application 08/108,932
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, on the ground that the specification
fails to provide an adequate written description and an
enabling disclosure of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 5, 6,
8, 12, 17 and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Robinson. The claims stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 7, 9, 13, 14, 18, 20
and 21 over Robinson; claims 11, 19 and 21 over Robinson in
view of Humphrey; claims 15 and 16 over Robinson in view of
Humphrey and JP ‘146; claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-21 over Mercenari
in view of Humphrey. 3
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, these rejections will be reversed.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-21
3 In the examiner’s answer (pages 4 and 8), the statements
of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mercenari in view of Humphrey
incorrectly include claim 10 which has been canceled
(amendment filed on August 8, 1994, paper no. 4, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007