Appeal No. 1996-3318
Application No. 08/287,056
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Baker 2,482,724 Sep. 20, 1949
Hitzman 4,414,334 Nov. 8, 1983
Orndorff 4,478,683 Oct. 23, 1984
Gr. Brit. Patent (Alfa-Laval)1 468 405 Mar. 23, 1977
ISSUES
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack
2
of enablement. Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Orndorff and Alfa-Laval in view of Hitzman and Baker.
We REVERSE both rejections.
In reaching our decision in this appeal we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed January 18, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the appellant's brief (Paper No. 20, filed November 24, 1995) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
2 Recitation of "Claims 1-1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, ... " on page
3 of the examiner's answer appears to be an obvious typographical error, with claims 1-2 and 7-8 intended.
Moreover, since the final rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not repeated
in the answer, it is presumed to have been withdrawn. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007