Appeal No. 2001-1276
Application No. 09/122,519
For the reasons given above, the assertion by appellant
(main brief, page 6) that the content of claim 1 before us on
appeal satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is not well founded.
Enablement
The examiner is of the view (final rejection, page 2) that
the claims are based upon "an inadequate disclosure because it
has not been sufficiently disclosed as to structurally how both
the magnetic conveyor and the vacuum conveyor can be mounted for
displacement as required by lines 10-12 of claim 1."
Appellant refers us to portions of the specification (main
brief, page 4) revealing that the magnetic device and the vacuum
device can be displaced and brought into contact with a
workpiece, but acknowledges in the reply brief (page 2) that only
one of the belts 1 or 2 is raised or lowered relative to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007