Appeal No. 1999-2304
Application 08/667,242
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for failing to provide a written description
of the claimed invention and for failing to provide an
enabling disclosure of the claimed invention. Claims 1–10,
12-23, 25 and 26 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Saiki in view
of Ludwig with respect to claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-18, 20-23, 25
and 26, and the examiner adds Weiner with respect to claims 6
and 19.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007