Appeal No. 2001-2671 Page 10
Application No. 09/258,155
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1, 3 to 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 to 5 and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The examiner has asserted (final rejection, pp. 3-4) that
the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefor lacks
utility. We do not agree for the reasons set forth above in
our discussion of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, based on the enablement requirement. Suffice it to
say, it is our view that the claimed invention is operative
and has utility. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1, 3 to 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
reversed.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007