Appeal No. 97-1437
Application 08/356,227
The sole rejection presented for our review is that of
claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based
on a specification which fails to provide an enabling disclosure,
i.e., which fails to adequately teach one skilled in the art how
to make and use the claimed invention. On pages 4 through 11 of
the answer, the examiner presents a commentary of why he
considers the present disclosure to be "indefinite and
insufficient."
Rather than reiterate the details of the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 12, mailed October 24, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 11,
filed August 5, 1996) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claim 18,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007