Appeal No. 2001-0302
Application No. 08/635,614
(b) 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 skilled in the art to which it
pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make
and/or use the invention” (answer, page 4);
(c) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being anticipated by Ito;
(d) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Ito or
Takaoka in view of Wehr;
(e) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Ito in
view of either Milby or Parker; and
(f) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Ito or
Takaoka in view of Wehr, and further in view of Milby or Parker.
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 22 and 27) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
23) for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.
Preliminary Matters
Before discussing the merits of the foregoing rejections, we
note that the appellants have raised as issues in this appeal the
finality of the office action mailed May 24, 1999 (Paper No. 18),
as well as objections to the drawings under 35 CFR § 1.83(a) (see
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007