Appeal No. 96-0311
Application No. 08/155,771
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, as relying on a nonenabling disclosure.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Uehara and Kojima.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions thereof.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The examiner contends (pages 3-4 of the answer) that the
disclosure is not adequate for the three specific
example deflection values disclosed (333, 1000, and
1500D), and...that the disclosure is not adequate
for deflection values much less than the lowest of
the deflection values disclosed (333D) down to zero
as would be encompassed by the recitations in the
claims of “not more than 1,500D” or “at most
1,500D”.
First, the examiner does not state for what purpose the
disclosure is alleged to be “not adequate.”
We presume that the examiner is making a rejection under
the enablement clause of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 and is alleging that the disclosure would not have enabled
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007