Appeal No. 98-2810
Application 08/471,457
artisan would have been able to make and use appellant’s claimed invention as set forth in claim 19 on
appeal, based on appellant’s disclosure, without the exercise of undue experimentation.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 19 under 35
U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as being directed to a non-enabling disclosure.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which appellant
regards as the invention. In this instance, we note that appellant has filed two amendments, one on
March 5, 1997 (Paper No. 11) and one on February 6, 1998 (Paper No. 21), both of which
amendments make the appropriate corrections to claims 13 and 14, and both of which amendments the
examiner has indicated would be entered. Indeed, the amendment filed February 6, 1998 has been
entered. However, notwithstanding the entry of this amendment, the examiner has not withdrawn the
rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Note particularly, Paper No.
22, mailed March 11, 1998. Although we are of the view that the minor spelling error in claims 13 and
14 is hardly of such character as to rise to a level of indefiniteness which would preclude one of
ordinary skill in the art from readily
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007