Appeal No. 1996-2801
Application 08/134,361
Concerning the § 112, first paragraph, rejection
which plainly relates to the written description requirement,
the
examiner's position has no perceptible merit. In addition to
the comments made by the appellants, we point out that the
claim recitation referred to by the examiner unquestionably
satisfies the written description requirement as evinced, for
example, by original claim 2. It follows that we also cannot
sustain the examiner's § 112, first paragraph, rejection of
claims 8 through 11 and 13 through 16.
As correctly argued by the appellants, each of the
examiner's prior art rejections is improper because the Chari
reference contains no teaching or suggestion of the weight
ratio required by all of the claims on appeal. Significantly,
the examiner has not explicitly disagreed with the appellants
on this matter and, indeed, has not explicitly addressed the
here-claimed ratio in her answer. Under these circumstances,
we cannot sustain the examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 7 and 11 over Chari, or her § 103 rejection of claims
10, 12
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007