Appeal No. 1995-2789
Application No. 07/788,114
DISCUSSION
Initially, we note that on March 25, 19984, this appeal was remanded at
the request of the Office of the Group Director of Technology Center 1600, “so
that the issues raised in this appeal can be reconsidered.” However, on January
19, 19995 the examiner, after consideration of the issues on appeal, maintained
the pending rejections and returned the application to the Board, where it
resumed its original place on appeal.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered appellants’
specification and claims, in addition to the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s Answer6,
and the examiner’s Supplemental Answer7 for the examiner’s reasoning in
support of the rejections. We further reference appellants’ Brief8, and appellants’
Reply Brief9 for the appellants’ arguments in favor of patentability.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 6) “the specification does not
provide an adequate written description so as to enable the ordinary skilled
See Reply Brief, page 2. The “updated” basis for the rejection is set forth herein.
4 Paper No. 26.
5 See Paper No. 27.
6 Paper No. 20, mailed April 28, 1994.
7 Paper No. 23, mailed December 14, 1997.
8 Paper No. 19, received March 22, 1994.
9 Paper No. 21, received June 30, 1994.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007