Appeal No. 2001-1911
Application No. 08/825,492
35 U.S.C. § 102, since it has been set forth in the final
rejection as not including claims 21, 22 and 26.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellants’ positions and to the final rejection and the answer
for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
As embellished upon here, we sustain the rejection of the
noted claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 102
respectively, but reverse the rejection of the claims on appeal
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning first to the rejection of the claims under the
written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, it is clear to us from our study of the written
description, including the initially filed claims and drawings,
that appellants possessed within 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, the subject matter of the claims on appeal pertaining
to language of each of the respective independent claims 1, 14
and 21 on appeal of the ATM cell having “a header that includes
information indicative of a merging method used.” Independent
claim 21 goes on to add to this feature of the method being “used
to construct the ATM cell.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007