Appeal No. 1999-2852
Application 08/681,898
compaction system for densifying a material to achieve a
predetermined
density. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claim 32, which appears in the
appendix to the appellant’s brief.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 32 through 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. � 101
because in the examiner’s opinion the claimed invention is not
supported by either a creditable asserted utility or a well
established utility.
Claims 32 through 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. �
112, first paragraph (enablement) for similar reasons.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding the above noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 11 and 14) for the examiner’s
complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant’s arguments
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007