Appeal No. 1999-2512
Application No. 08/888,499
been apprised of the scope of the claims when read in light of the
specification. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d
1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As with any rejection for
unpatentability, the initial burden of proof rests with the
examiner. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the rejection on appeal, the examiner
fails to state any reasons or evidence to support the rejection
under section 112, second paragraph (see the Answer, page 4).
Since the examiner uses the terms "confusing" and "confusion in the
intended meaning" when discussing the rejection for lack of
enablement under the first paragraph of section 112 (id.), we will
consider the explanation on pages 4-7 of the Answer to also apply
to the rejection under the second paragraph of section 112.
With regard to the rejection under the first paragraph of
section 112 for lack of enablement, the examiner finds appellants'
terminology "confusing" since the term "vacuum deposition chamber"
is allegedly unclear since it appears to include both the "plasma
creation chamber 80" and the "deposition chamber 78" while the
specification defines this term differently (Answer, page 4). The
examiner finds that the term "vacuum deposition chamber" as read in
light of the specification would appear to refer to chambers 78 or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007