Appeal No. 96-3726
Application No. 08/074,009
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by either Manabe or Wagner.
Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
or section 103 as being anticipated by or obvious over Wagner.
Finally, claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Wagner.
The claims on appeal have been separately grouped and
argued in the manner set forth on page 4 of the brief.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We can not sustain any of the rejections advanced by the
examiner on this appeal.
Concerning the section 112, first paragraph, rejection,
the record before us reflects confusion on the examiner’s part
as to the distinction between the written description and the
enablement requirements set forth in this paragraph. For
example, while the examiner insists that his rejection is
based upon the written description requirement, his rationale
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007