Appeal No. 1998-1827 Page 4
Application No. 08/644,932
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors,
at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention. Claims 2, 4-7 and 18-23 stand rejected
under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph on the ground that the
specification is non-enabling. Claims 2, 4-7 and 18-23 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as
the invention.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for the opposing
viewpoints expressed by appellants and the examiner concerning
the above-noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will not sustain any of
the examiner’s rejections.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner has expressed a number of concerns regarding
the claim language. See answer, page 5 for the statement of
the examiner’s rejection. However, the examiner has not
carried the burden of explaining why the language of any of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007