Appeal No. 2002-1064 Page 3
Application No. 09/126,385
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference to Maron, and
to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Claim 10 reads as follows:
In a baggage screening system including a monitor the improvement
which comprises means for intentionally causing said monitor to show images of
simulated items in selected items of baggage being screened.
The examiner states (answer, p. ) that claim 10 is rejected
because the specification, while being enabling for a baggage screening monitor
which shows images of simulated items, does not reasonably provide
enablement for "means for intentionally causing" said monitor to show said
images. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which
it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
invention commensurate in scope with these claims [sic, this claim].
The single means claim which covers every conceivable means for
achieving the stated purpose of intentionally causing said monitor to show
images of simulated items is held non-enabling for the scope of the claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007