Appeal No. 1997-4446
Application No. 08/278,151
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being non-enabled by the disclosure.
Claims 1 through 7, 9, 19 through 40, and 47 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Appellants' Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamashita.
Reference is made to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 14,
mailed January 11, 1996) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No.
21, mailed December 11, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
Brief (Paper No. 20, filed September 11, 1996) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 22, filed February 11, 1997) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the enablement rejections of claims 8
and 10 and also the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
7, 9, 19 through 40, and 47.
The examiner asserts (Final Rejection, page 5) that claim
8 is not enabled by the specification because "no elements are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007