Appeal No. 1995-1304
Application No. 07/947,071
significant or "in effect forces one of ordinary skill in the
art to experiment unduly in order to practice the claimed
invention."
The rejection of claims 1, 3 through 8, 10 through 16, 20
through 23, and 25 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, "as being based on an insufficient disclosure to
support the scope of the claimed subject matter" is reversed.
Claims 1, 3 through 8, 10 through 16, 20 through 23, and
25 through 30 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
and second paragraphs, "as the claimed invention is not
described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same,
and/or for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention." See the Examiner's Answer, page 9. According to
the examiner, these claims are indefinite and based on a non-
enabling disclosure in view of the recitation "physiologically
relevant conditions."
The rejection is manifestly untenable with respect to
claims 8, 10 through 16, and 20 through 22, because these
claims do not recite "physiologically relevant conditions."
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007