Appeal No. 1995-1304
Application No. 07/947,071
encompass before considering the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.)
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, 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.
The rejection of the appealed claims as indefinite and
based on a non-enabling disclosure in view of the recitation
"physiologically relevant conditions" is reversed with respect
to claims 8, 10 through 16, and 20 through 22.
The rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 23, and 25
through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite in view of the expression "physiologically relevant
conditions" is affirmed. We do not reach the rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 7, 23, and 25 through 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure
in view of the expression "physiologically relevant
conditions."
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007