Appeal No. 97-2884
Application 07/824,855
undue experimentation. Moreover, the appealed claims, which
recite an infusion apparatus comprising, inter alia, a platen
having a non-planar bottom surface configuration which is
complementary to the bottom contour of the second shell or
chamber, do not read on the embodiment shown in Figures 8
through 10 which does not have such a platen. Rather, the
appealed claims read on the infusion device embodiment shown
in Figures 1 through 6 which does have such a platen and whose
disclosure has not been questioned by the examiner. Thus, 3
even if the appellants’ specification did fail to provide an
enabling disclosure of the embodiment shown in Figures 8
through 10, this circumstance would not give rise to an
enablement rejection of the appealed claims which are not
directed to such embodiment.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection rests on
the examiner’s determination that claims 58 through 61 are
indefinite because they do not recite a positive structural
connection between the fluid delivery bag and the other
3The statement on page 8 in the appellants’ brief that
claims 58 through 61 read on both embodiments finds no support
in the specification.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007