Appeal No. 1997-1594
Application No. 08/247,090
We find the examiner’s assertions that the claims are
unsupported by an adequate enabling disclosure not well taken.
The specification on pages 6-12 sets forth the subject matter
claimed by appellant. The examiner chooses to address only
limitations that do not appear in the claimed subject matter.
However, the examiner does not address the basic issue as to
whether the claimed subject matter is adequately enabled.
Based upon the above considerations, we will not sustain
the rejection of the examiner on the grounds of enablement.
B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
With respect to this rejection, appellants fail to argue
the separate patentability of any of the dependent claims.
Accordingly, we select claim 1, the sole independent claim as
representative of appellants’ claimed subject matter and limit
our consideration thereto. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007