Appeal No. 1999-2512
Application No. 08/888,499
The following rejections are before us for consideration in
this appeal:
(1) claims 29-38 and 44 stand rejected under the first and
second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112, as containing subject matter
which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor has
possession of the subject matter in question (Answer, page 7), for
lack of enabling disclosure (Answer, page 4), and as indefinite
(id.);2
(2) claims 29-30, 32-34, 38 and 44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as anticipated by Nishiyama (Answer, page 8);
(3) claims 39-40, 42-43 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as unpatentable over Nishiyama (Answer, page 9);
(4) claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Nishiyama in view of Chebi (Answer, page 10);
(5) claims 29-40 and 42-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as unpatentable over Lane in view of Ishihara and
Yamazaki or Kuyel or Chebi (Answer, page 11);
2 For reasons of judicial economy, we have merged the
examiner's three separate rejections under section 112 since the
same claims have been rejected in each rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007