Appeal No. 2000-1000
Application No. 08/392,062
OPINION
In resolving the description requirement issue raised on
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims 20 and 26, and the views 2
advocated by appellant and the examiner, respectively. As a
consequence of our review, we reach the conclusion that
follows.
This panel of the board sustains the examiner’s rejection
of appellant’s claims for the reasons given below.
1(...continued)
appellant’s argument is directed to both description and
enablement matters. While our focus will appropriately be
upon the description issue raised in the examiner’s rejection,
we will take into account the entirety of appellant’s argument
as it pertains to that issue.
2We focus our attention exclusively on the subject matter
of independent claims 20 and 26 since appellant indicates that
claims 20 through 25 stand or fall together and that claims 26
through 31 stand or fall together (revised brief, page 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007