Appeal No. 1999-1581
Application No. 08/651,369
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 11 and 13 through 16 stand
rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack
of enablement.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9 through 11 and 13
through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being1
unpatentable over Ranta.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ranta in view of Lee.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 8 and 10)
and the answer (paper number 9) for the respective positions
of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections of record.
In a lengthy explanation (answer, pages 3 through 5), the
examiner explains how he believes appellants’ disclosed and
claimed invention should have been described. In short, the
1Based upon the fact that claims 4 and 12 are not before
us on appeal, and the additional fact that claims 8 and 16 are
listed in a separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
assume that claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9 through 11 and
13 through 15 are the only claims that the examiner should
have listed under this particular rejection (answer, page 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007