Appeal No. 97-0226
Application No. 08/441,965
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as their invention ; and 2
(2) Claims 9 through 11 and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, for failing to provide an enabling
disclosure for the subject matter claimed . 3
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.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 9
through 11 and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. In determining whether claim
language runs afoul of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
2The rejections of claims 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, are included in this rejection.
3The rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is included in this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007