Appeal No. 1995-2789
Application No. 07/788,114
GROUNDS OF REJECTION1
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as lacking a written description and enabling disclosure.2
Claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being unpatentable because the claimed invention was known by others, as
evidenced by Follettie.3
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Reinscheld.
Claims 6 and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Reinsheld in view of Winnacker.
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, first paragraph, and
103. We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by
Reinscheld. We vacate the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as evidenced by
Follettie, and remand for further consideration.
1 We note the examiner withdrew (Answer, page 5) the Final rejection of claims
1, 2, 5-7 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beskrovnaya in
view of Peoples and Winnacker.
2 We note the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 is directly connected and
relates to the objection to the specification. In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395,
1403-1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479-480 (CCPA 1971).
3 This rejection was originally presented as a New Ground of Rejection (see
Answer, page 10) relying on Follettie to meet the “described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country” clause of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). However,
the examiner subsequently withdrew this basis for the rejection, relying instead
on the “known or used by others in this country” clause of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007