Appeal No. 2002-0283
Application 09/328,918
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary with
regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
28, mailed November 17, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
27, filed September 4, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 12, 17,
20 through 24 and 29 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, wherein the examiner has urged that the specification,
as originally filed, fails to provide written descriptive support
for the invention as now claimed.1 In considering this
1 In the examiner’s explanation of this rejection on pages 3
and 4 of the answer, and of the other rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, the examiner has repeatedly made reference to limitations
in claims that have been canceled from the application (e.g.,
claims 15, 18 and 19) and additionally made reference to
limitations which are no longer present in claim 32 on appeal. In
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007