Appeal No. 1997-2510
Application No. 07/868,539
Claims 1 and 3-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as specification does not contain (i) an adequate written description and (ii) a
sufficient disclosure to support or enable the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 1, 3 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Vickers, in view of Sakata, Metzler, Uhlmann and Inouye.
Claims 1, 3 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Bielinska, in view of Sakata, Uhlmann and Inouye.
Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Vickers, in view of Sakata, Metzler, Uhlmann and Inouye; or Bielinska, in view of
Sakata, Uhlmann and Inouye, further in view of Kaji and Everett.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Vickers,
in view of Sakata, Metzler, Uhlmann and Inouye; or Bielinska, in view of Sakata,
Uhlmann and Inouye, further in view of Mitsuya.
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Vickers, in view of Sakata, Metzler, Uhlmann and Inouye; or Bielinska, in view of
Sakata, Uhlmann and Inouye, further in view of Summerton.
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, second paragraph and
103. We vacate the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and
remand the application to the examiner for further consideration.
DISCUSSION
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007