Appeal No. 97-3561
Application No. 08/352,190
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure in this application describes
the claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that the inventions
of claims 1, 9 and 17 are not fully met by any of the
disclosures of Weverka, Kiasaleh or Lipsky. We are further of
the view that the collective evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-20 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The final rejection
indicated that the disclosure was enabling only for claims
limited to an RF signal train generator and interferoceiver
which is optical fiber based [page 2]. In the answer the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007