Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 4
Application No. 08/100,019
(Paper No. 39, filed August 12, 1999) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by Appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of a
careful review of the evidence before us, we agree with the
Examiner that the specification does not describe the claimed
subject matter of claims 7 and 15 in an enabling manner. We are
also in agreement with the Examiner that Guez anticipates the
invention of claims 1 through 3, 6 and 8, and that, in
combination with Jones, renders obvious the invention of claims 4
and 5. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the
§ 102 rejections of claims 4, 5, 10 through 14, 16 and 17 over
Guez and claims 1 through 6, 8, 10 through 14, 16 and 17 over
Ames. Additionally, it is our view that Ames in combination with
Jones would not have suggested the invention of claims 4, 5, 12
and 13 and that Guez in combination with Jones would not have
suggested the invention of claims 12 and 13.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part. We also remand the
application to the Examiner for further evaluation and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007