Appeal No. 1996-3536 Page 5
Application No. 08/509,006
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence
adduced by the examiner is insufficient to support a rejection
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
17 and 21 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Our reasoning for this determination follows.
The examiner's complete statement of the ground of
rejection (answer, pp. 2-3) is as follows:
The following ground(s) of rejection are applicable
to the appealed claims.
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as the specification, as
originally filed, does not provide support for the
invention as is now claimed.
Appellant is attempting by preliminary amendment to
delete the term "CFB" from the specification and claims.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 4) that the claims under
appeal "are not properly rejected . . . for lacking support in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007