Appeal No. 1997-3974
Application No. 08/541,254
relied upon by the examiner as support for the obviousness
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
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 the disclosure 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 collective
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
12-14 and
16-18. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 12-14 and
16-18 based on the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
examiner’s rejection is based on the position that the
originally filed specification does not support the invention
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007