Appeal No. 1996-0848
Application 07/624,053
arguments and evidence presented by appellant outweigh the arguments and facts
provided by the examiner as to the question of whether Jones provides an enabling
disclosure which would have placed the claimed invention in the hands of the public. Thus,
we find that the examiner has failed to establish prima facie case of anticipation
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore, the rejection of claims 16-22, 24, 25,
27-32, 34, 35, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
SUMMARY
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 16-22, 24, 25,
27-32, 34, 35, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is reversed. The decision of
the examiner to reject claims 16-22, 24, 25, 27-32, 34, 35, and 42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is reversed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 16-
22, 24, 25, 27-32, 34, 35, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007