Ex parte RIEGER et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1996-2801                                                        
          Application 08/134,361                                                      

                    Concerning the  112, first paragraph, rejection                  
          which plainly relates to the written description requirement,               
          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                                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007