Appeal No. 1998-3367
Application No. 08/545,717
M.P.E.P
§ 608.01(p).2
While appellants’ disclosure may require the use of some
experimentation in order to make the claimed invention, for
the reasons expressed above, we conclude that undue
experimentation would not be required. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the standing § 112 rejection of the appealed
claims.
The rejections based on Gipson
The appealed claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gipson.
Considering first the question of anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the examiner’s position that the waist
belt of Gipson appears to inherently have the same stiffness
as called for in claim 1 is speculative. Since mere
2A copy of this section of the Manual is attached to this
opinion for the convenience of appellants and the examiner.
Note, in particular, that “essential material” may be
incorporated by reference to a U.S. patent or a pending U.S.
application, and that “nonessential material” may be
incorporated by reference to, among others, patent
applications published by foreign countries or regional patent
offices.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007