Appeal No. 97-3075
Application No. 08/201,846
Claims 1, 4 through 8, 13 through 20 and 25 through 28
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the 2
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note, in passing, that claims 6 through
8 are in improper form as 37 CFR § 1.75 states that “[a]
multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any
other multiple dependent claim.”
The examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, but does not clearly indicate whether the
rejection is one of inadequate written description or
nonenablement.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains three
separate and distinct requirements for sufficiency of
disclosure, i.e., the written description, enablement and best
mode requirements. See In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 591, 194
2The examiner’s response to the reply brief, Paper No.
17, is considered a supplemental answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007