Appeal No. 1997-1498
Application No. 08/251,148
(1) Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
lacking descriptive support for the invention presently
claimed; and
(2) Claims 1 through 17 and 19 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the disclosure of Minnick.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that
only the examiner’s § 112 rejection of claims 1 and 2 is well
founded. Accordingly, we affirm the § 112 rejection of claims
1 and 2, but reverse the § 103 rejection of claims 1 through
17 and 19 through 21. Our reasons for this determination
follow.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as lacking descriptive support in the
application disclosure as originally filed for the
subsequently added limitations in claims 1 and 2. According
Answer. See the Answer to the Reply Brief dated August 21,
1996, Paper No. 16.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007