Appeal No. 96-2094
Application 08/282,783
The rejections are explained in the final rejection
(Paper No. 37, mailed June 13, 1995) and the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 44, mailed December 13, 1995).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 43, filed November 1, 1995) and the reply
brief (Paper No. 45, filed February 13, 1996).
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection
Looking at the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 and
7-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we initially note
that the description requirement found in the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate from the enablement requirement
of that provision. See, for example, Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114-17
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222
USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209
(1985). In the present instance, we understand the examiner’s
rejection to be based on the description requirement of the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007