Appeal No. 2000-2097 Page 7
Application No. 08/852,681
applied prior art, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 1, and of dependent claims 2,
3, 5, 26, 28 and 29. 3
New grounds of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection.4
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as the specification, as originally filed,
does not provide support for the invention as is now claimed.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
3We have also reviewed the reference to Epel additionally
applied in the rejection of claim 3 but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiencies of Zurbuchen '300 and
Cooper discussed above.
4In addition, we cite Zurbuchen '693 and the examiner
should consider the teachings of Zurbuchen '693 as well as the
other prior art of record in any future prosecution of this
application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007