Appeal No. 1999-1847
Application No. 08/810,581
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Mar. 2, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed Jan. 26, 1999) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH
The examiner goes on at great length that the system components (software and
hardwired programming) are not sufficiently disclosed as to ascertain how each performs
its disclosed function. The examiner maintains that the structural connections, circuitry and
cooperation are not sufficiently disclosed. (See answer at pages 4-13.) We find that the
examiner has not attempted to establish why the supporting specification in combination
with the relevant prior art fails to enable the claims which is the examiner’s initial burden.
In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971). From our
review of the examiner rejection, the examiner maintains that the programming and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007