Appeal No. 1997-4264
Application No. 08/421,131
No. 17) and to the answer (Paper No. 22) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
brief (Paper No. 21) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. The determinations we have made and the reasons
behind them are set forth below.
Rejection (1)
According to the answer (page 4), the examiner's
reasoning for the rejection of claims 1 through 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, can be found on page 2 of
the final rejection (Paper No. 17).
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007