Appeal No. 2001-1266 Page 5
Application No. 08/966,788
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 6 to 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
The basis for this rejection (answer, p. 3) is that
"[t]he claimed invention lacks patentable utility." However,
the examiner has not pointed out how the claimed invention
(e.g., claims 6, 14 and 20) lacks patentable utility. It is
our view that the claimed invention clearly has the same well
established utility as the known prior art (e.g., Japan Kokai
2-62103 and Japan Kokoku 1-34365).
The examiner (answer, pp. 3-5) has only pointed out how
the disclosed invention would have the same problem
(electrically conducting state between the communication
equipment and the messenger wire) that the known prior art
has. Even if this were true, we fail to see how this violates
the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Moreover, we
agree with the appellant (brief, pp. 3-6) that a person
skilled in the art would easily understand from the original
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007