Appeal No. 1997-1560
Application 08/257,813
The lack of enablement rejection is reversed pro forma as
to claims 18 through 21, 23 and 24 because the lack of
enablement rejection only applies to claim 22. With respect
to claim 22, the examiner contends (Answer, page 3) that
“[t]he original specification fails to teach photopic filter
means which is introduced at each station whereby to balance
and match the image-spectrum emanating therefrom so that these
are essentially
the same from all the stations.” We agree with appellants’
argument (Brief, page 5) that “[t]he specification makes it
quite plain that both photopic filters work to give images
whose spectrum ‘closely matches that of the human eye’. . .;
and since they both match the same spectrum, they match one
another” (Specification, page 26, lines 19 through 24). The
lack of enablement rejection of claim 22 is likewise reversed.
Turning lastly to the same invention double patenting
rejection, we agree with appellants’ argument (Brief, page 7)
that there are differences between the claims on appeal and
the claims found in the patent to Vala. As a result of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007