Appeal No. 97-0225
Application No. 08/357,789
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as their invention ; 2
(2) Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, for
failing to further limit the subject matter of its parent
claim;
(3) Claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph,
for lacking descriptive support for the subject matter
presently claimed in the original disclosure; and
(4) Claims 1, 6, 8 and 21 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for failing to provide an enabling disclosure
for the subject matter claimed.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the argument advanced by the examiner and appellants in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us
to conclude that the examiner’s rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejections for essentially those reasons set forth by
appellants in their Brief. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
2The rejections of claims 6, 8 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, are included in this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007