Appeal No. 97-0168
Application No. 08/348,991
region and said absorption layer is exposed to an edge surface
of the device.
No prior art references of record have been relied upon
by
the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims.
Claims 23, 25, 28, 30 through 34, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46,
and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as
the examiner states (Answer, page 4) that "the claimed
invention was not described in the original disclosure in such
full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person
skilled in the art to make and use the same."2
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 36,
mailed May 29, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 35, filed March 4, 1996) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 37,
filed July 29, 1996) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
There are three requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112, enablement,2
written description, and best mode. Although the examiner has stated the
basis for the rejection in terms of enablement, the statement of the issues
and the explanation following the statement of the rejection indicate that the
basis for the rejection actually is a failure to provide an adequate written
description. Accordingly, we will consider the adequacy of the written
description.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007