Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
the perspective of the person skilled in the pertinent art (In
re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914, 178 USPQ 620, 624 (CCPA 1973))
and an inventor need not explain every detail since he is
speaking to those skilled in the art (In re Howarth, 654 F.2d
103, 105, 210 USPQ 689, 691 (CCPA 1981)).
The § 112, 4th paragraph, rejection of claim 36
The examiner contends (final rejection, page 2) that
claim 36 merely restates paragraph 2 of claim 25, and does not
further limit the subject matter of that claim.
In that the dependency of claim 36 has been changed from
claim 25 to claim 35 by the amendment filed subsequent to the
final rejection, and in that claim 36 does not restate any
limitations found in claim 35 from which it now depends, the
reason for the examiner’s § 112, fourth paragraph, rejection
of claim 36 no longer exists. Accordingly, this rejection
will not be sustained.
The § 102 rejection based on Coffey
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007