Appeal No. 1997-3441
Application No. 08/614,920
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in
support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the Examiner as support for the obviousness rejection.
We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the
Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that Appellants’ specification in this application describes
the claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that
the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1-15, 29, and 31. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection, we note that, although the Examiner relies on both
the “written description” and “enablement” requirements of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007