Appeal No. 2000-2294
Application No. 08/511,425
in support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the obviousness
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Brief 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 Appellants’ specification 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 claims particularly point out the invention in a
manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We are also of the conclusion that the 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 the appealed claims.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We first consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of the appealed claims for “lack of
enablement.” In order to comply with the enablement provision
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007