Appeal No. 2001-1266 Page 7
Application No. 08/966,788
one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the
claimed invention.
For the reasons set forth above in our discussion of the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it is our view that the
claimed invention has a well established utility.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 6
to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007