Appeal No. 1996-2088
Application No. 08/082,432
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a nonenabling
disclosure. Claims 16-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (A)
Maeda or Hu in view of (B) APA and (C) either Tracy or Madokoro. Claims 16-24 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 2 and 5-7 of
Sugano in view of either Tracy or Madokoro.
We reverse the § 112, first paragraph (enablement) rejection. We affirm-in-part the § 103 and
obviousness-type double patenting rejections.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’
specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 20, mailed September 11, 1995) for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 19, filed July
24, 1995) and the appellants’ reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed November 16, 1995) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
According to appellants, the claims are divided into three groups: (I) claim 22, (II) claims 16-
18 and 23, and (III) claims 19-21 and 24 (reply brief, page 1). Therefore, we decide this appeal on
the basis of claims 16, 19 and 22. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
THE INVENTION
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007