Appeal No. 97-2764
Application No. 08/354,018
claims 22, 25-27, and 30-37, 2) claims 23 and 28, and 3)
claims 24 and 29.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the enablement and best mode rejection
of claims 22 through 37. Also, we will reverse the
obviousness rejections of claims 22 through 25, 27 through 30,
and 32 through 37.
The examiner rejects all of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based on a disclosure which
is non-enabling and in which the best mode is not disclosed.
The examiner does not appear to distinguish between the two
requirements of the statute. However, the court in Spectra-
Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 3 USPQ2d 1737,
1742 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 954, quoting In
re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 772, 135 USPQ 311, 315 (CCPA 1962)
explains the difference between the two:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007