Appeal No. 1996-3284
Application 08/154,864
We have considered the rejection advanced by the
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellant's arguments
against the rejection as set forth in the brief.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejection of claims 3 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph is not proper. The rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is proper with respect to claims 3 and
4, but improper with respect to claim 9. The rejection of
claims 3 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is not sustained. Also,
the rejection of claims 3 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
improper. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part. In addition, under
37 CFR § 1.196(b), we reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
and claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Next, we treat the various rejections individually.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claims 3 to 9 are rejected as failing to provide an
adequate written description of the invention [answer, pages 4
and 5].
The written description requirement serves "to ensure
that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the
application relied on, of the specific subject matter later
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007