Appeal No. 2000-1308
Application 08/550,909
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and 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.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that none of the rejections made by the examiner is supported
by the evidentiary record before us. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 18-22 and 25-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on an
insufficient disclosure. The rejection raises questions with
respect to both lack of enablement and lack of written
description [Paper No. 13, pages 2-3]. The rejection only makes
general observations that the specification does not enable one
of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention and
does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art
that the inventors were in possession of the invention. The
rejection provides little analysis as to why a person skilled in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007