Appeal No. 97-2876
Application 08/335,008
§ 112. As expressed in the supplemental examiner’s answer,
this rejection is limited to claims 44 to 48 and 52 to 55.
All claims on appeal, claims 43 to 48 and 50 to 57 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner presents the collective teachings of Meyerle in
view of Schofield as to claims 43, 50 to 52 and 54, as the
basic combination of references. To this basic combination
the examiner adds Takagi as to claims 44 to 48, adds Kudo as
to claim 53, adds Spear as to claim 55, adds Wu as to claim 56
and Marui as to claim 57.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the various briefs and
answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, to the extent the rejection is based upon the
enablement provision of this statutory provision, we reverse
the rejection. Appellants’ reply brief correctly reflects
that enablement is determined from the artisan’s perspective
and cites various cases, which we see no need to repeat here,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007