Appeal No. 1997-0689
Application No. 08/047,238
review, we will affirm the enablement rejection of claim 23
and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 12, 14, 18,
and 23 through 27.
Claim 23 requires mounting the movable diffraction
grating windowpane for "rotational repositioning with respect
to said fixed diffraction grating windowpane." The examiner
asserts (Answer, page 5) that there is no enabling disclosure
for such rotational repositioning. Appellant (Brief, page 10)
points only to original claim 23 for enablement, stating that
"round
windowpanes presented in various forms as Figure 13 properly
reflect the language of original claim 23." (It should be
noted that Figure 13, to which appellant refers, is not part
of the original disclosure and has not been entered by the
examiner.)
We agree with the examiner that the specification as
originally filed does not provide enablement for claim 23.
Nowhere in the specification is there any mention of
rotational repositioning, and all figures are directed to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007