Appeal No. 2000-1511
Application 08/671,853
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
obviousness 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 answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the claimed invention is properly supported by the
specification of this application as filed within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 100-113, 115-
122, 125-128, 134 and 139-161. We reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to claims 129-132, 135 and 136. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of all claims under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The rejection states that
the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007