Appeal No. 2000-1082 3
Application No. 08/727,303
THE REFERENCES OF RECORD
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references:
Dobson et al. (Dobson ‘344) 516,344 Dec. 2, 1992
(European Patent Application
Dobson et al. (Dobson ‘938) WO 96/02938 Feb. 1, 1996
(PCT Patent Application)
THE REJECTIONS1
Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
enable one skill in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected to
make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, and 9 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Dobson.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejection of claims 1 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this
1The rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 under §§ 102(a)/103(a) have been withdrawn. The
rejection of claims 1 through 15 under § 103(a) over Dobson in view of either Lee, Fujii or Mueller is
likewise withdrawn.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007