Appeal No. 96-2673
Application No. 07/851,887
written description because the original specification does not
provide support for the invention as is now claimed in amended
claim 15. Claims 24, 25 and 29 through 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims
15, 16, 32, 33, 35, 37 through 41 and 43 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. '' 102(b)/103 as anticipated by, or alternatively
unpatentable over, Elms. Finally, claims 15 through 43 stand
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over claims 1 through 6 of U.S. Patent No.
4,513,364 and claims 1 through 21 of U.S. Patent No. 4,857,806
and claims 1 through 20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,047,690.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We will not sustain any of the rejections of claims 15
through 43 because the examiner has utterly failed to present any
reasoning with regard to the rejections made in any manner which
can be rationally addressed by appellant on rebuttal. At best,
the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case with
respect to any rejection.
With regard to the rejection of claims 15 through 17 and 32
through 43 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph, the examiner
merely states [answer, page 3] that the “specification fails to
support the elements now recited in amended claim 15” and that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007