Appeal No. 1999-0678
Application No. 08/462,691
7) Claims 23, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Sundman, Soteland,
and Reeve with or without Backlund; and
8) Claims 23, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of either Meredith,
Soteland, Sundman and Reeve with or without Singh, Kimura, or
Coste and with or without Backlund.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and
prior art, including all of the evidence and arguments advanced
by both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we will
reverse the foregoing rejections. Our reasons follow.
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
The examiner has rejected claims 18 through 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based upon a disclosure
which fails to satisfy the written description requirement of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007