Appeal No. 98-1563 Page 10
Application No. 08/469,198
of this case that this rejection is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. §
121.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 39 and 52 under the judicially
created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-21 of
Yokota is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 39 and 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs.
In this rejection of claims 39 and 52, the examiner
stated (answer, pp. 6-7) that
the claimed invention is not described in such full,
clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person
skilled in the art to make and use the same, and/or for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which the appellants regard as the
invention. The claims are not supported by the
disclosure. Applicants have failed to illustrate and
disclose the specific controls for the claimed
temperature range "1300 to 1400° C" and the combustion
control for heating and maintaining rate of "at least
100° C/minute" from the specification. Without knowing
the specific controls, the claimed invention is not
adequately supported by the disclosure. In claim 52,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007