Appeal No. 97-1627 Page 4
Application No. 08/202,991
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as
non-enabled. The claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2, as indefinite. (Examiner’s Answer at 3.) Rather
than repeat the arguments of the appellants or examiner in
toto, we refer the reader to the appeal and reply briefs and
the examiner’s answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the appellants’
and examiner’s arguments. After considering the record before
us, it is our view that the specification would enable any
person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which
it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention
without undue experimentation. It is also our view that the
claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter regarded as the invention. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin our consideration of the patentability of the
claims by recalling that in rejecting claims, the patent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007