Appeal No. 2001-2188
Application No. 09/085,300
In view of the above, we find that the Examiner has not
established a reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency of
the instant disclosure. While some experimentation by artisans
may be necessary in order to practice the invention, we find that
such experimentation would not be undue.
In conclusion, in view of the above discussion, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 7-10, 12, and 14-19 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 7-10, 12, and 14-19 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR/hh
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007