Appeal No. 2001-2188
Application No. 09/085,300
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence and
arguments relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that Appellant’s specification in this application describes the
claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we reverse.
At the outset, we note that, from the arguments presented in
the Answer, the Examiner is relying on both the “written
description” and “enabling” clauses of the first paragraph of 35
1 The Appeal Brief was filed September 18, 2000 (Paper No. 19). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated November 17, 2000 (Paper No. 20), a
Reply Brief was filed January 23, 2001 (Paper No. 21), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated January
30, 2001 (Paper No. 22).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007