Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of each of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those
rejections, we refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 30,
mailed October 2, 1996) and to the supplemental examiner’s
answer (Paper No. 36) for the examiner’s reasoning in support
of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 29, filed
September 9, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 33) for
appellants’ arguments to the contrary.
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered appellants’ specification and claims
(both as originally filed and as amended), the applied
urged that this rejection is based on the “make and use”
provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (answer, page
7), it is apparent to us from the explanation of the rejection
that it is instead based on lack of written description, and
we will so treat the rejection for purposes of this appeal. We
further observe that the examiner has not specifically
included claims dependent from claims 1, 9 and 14 in the
rejection, although they would generally be subject to the
same ground of rejection as the independent claim.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007