Appeal No. 1996-2873
Application No. 08/209,194
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicants regard as their invention. Claims 50 through
60 and 67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking an enabling disclosure for the subject
matter presently claimed. Claims 50 through 65 and 67 through
80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Mortimer, Rising, Watanabe,
Kramer, Wiedrich, Bull and Globus.
We reverse each of the foregoing rejections.1
We reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 50
through 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for those
reasons expressed at pages 10 through 13 of the Brief.
We also reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
50 through 60 and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for those reasons expressed at pages 8 and 9 of the Brief. We
only add that our reviewing court has held that
it is not necessary that a patent applicant test
all the embodiments of his invention, In re
1The examiner has not repeated in the Answer the rejection
of claims 50, 51 and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) set forth in
the final Office action. Accordingly, this § 102(b) rejection
is presumed to have been withdrawn. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ
180 (Bd. App. 1957)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007