Appeal No. 1998-2884
Application No. 08/495,960
or fall with their base claim. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure in this application describes the
claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
are also of the view that the claims particularly point out
the invention in a manner which
complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We are of
the conclusion, however, that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 22-26 and 28. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection, we note that the Examiner, instead of relying on
the “written description” or “enablement” language of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007