Appeal No. 1997-3481
Application 08/476,543
Appellants point out the support for the limitations of
the dependent claims in the disclosure (RBr8-9). Appellants
argue that "since the Examiner has pointed to no language in
the dependent claims which is indefinite or 'nebulous' and
since the claims are clearly supported by the specification,
Applicants submit that the dependent claims satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112" (RBr9).
It is not clear exactly what statutory ground of
rejection the Examiner is relying upon, but appears to be more
related to the first paragraph of § 112 than the second
paragraph. The stated § 112 rejection is based on lack of
enablement, but the Examiner seems almost to making a lack of
written description rejection. In any case, however,
Appellants have pointed out the support in the specification
and we find such support convincing. The Examiner did not
respond to Appellants' arguments in his Supplemental
Examiner's Answer and has not explained why the subject matter
of the dependent claims is not enabled.
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the rejection of
claims 15-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007