Appeal No. 97-0598
Application 08/322,670
making the claimed charge transfer plate. The only argument
presented by the Examiner in the record is that quoted by
Appellants from the first Office action, which states that
“there could be tunneling of the current which would
effectively short all pins together and there alone make the
device inoperative.” [Brief, page 4.] We find that this is a
mere speculation. This allegation alone is not sufficient to
create a doubt about the validity of the disclosed process by
which the claimed charge transfer plate was manufactured.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Since all the other independent claims, namely, 5, 11, 18
and 19 were also rejected under the enablement requirement for
the same reason as claim 16, we reverse the rejection of
claims 5, 11, 18 and 19, and of the dependent claims 6 through
8 and 12 through 14 for the same reason.
In conclusion, we reverse the rejection of claims 5
through 8, 11 through 14, 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph for lack of enablement.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007