Appeal No. 96-3106
Application 08/052,015
invention of claim 19 is ". . . not described in such full,
clear, concise and exact terms 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 regard as the invention" [Answer, page 3].
The Examiner provides no explanation about what is not enabled
or what is indefinite about the claims and we will not guess
at what was meant. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for lack of enablement, and 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for vagueness and indefiniteness are
reversed.
The Examiner objects to the specification and rejects
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack of
written description, by stating "The Examiner cannot find
support in the specification for the phrase 'input and output
elements connected ... apparatus'" [Answer, page 3].
Appellants argue that the disclosure as originally filed
does have the support for the invention of claim 19 and cite
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007