Appeal No. 1998-0488
Application No. 08/496,234
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 1-
20. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-20 as
being based on an inadequate disclosure. The rejection points
to the specification as failing to provide an enabling
disclosure of the invention. Thus, the rejection is based on
the enablement portion of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The examiner points to several recitations of the claimed
invention which, in the examiner’s view, have not been enabled
by the supporting disclosure. Appellant has argued that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007