Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
Appellant contends (Brief, pages 31-37) that the disclosure
recites ample product related terminology, such as "constructed,"
"manufactured," "implemented," "interconnected," etc. These
terms deal with the apparatus and have not been shown to be
relevant to the claimed process limitation of "making a product."
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 37-41) that the claimed
products have antecedent basis in the ancestor patents that are
incorporated-by-reference. Again, appellant points to no
specific portion that discloses the claimed products and the
steps of making them, as recited in the various claims.
Consequently, the lack of written description rejection of the
product claims, claims 178-189, 192, 195, 206, 213, 216, 219,
229, 232, 235, 237-248, 251, 254, 265, 275, 278, 285, 288, 303,
304, 307, 310, 311, 314, 317, 320, 323, 324, 327, 330, 331, 334,
336 through 338, 341 through 346, 349, 351 through 353, 356
through 361, 364, 366 through 368, 371, 374 through 377, 379,
382, 384, 389, 390, and 393 through 395, is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph, Enablement Rejection
The examiner is of the opinion (Answer, pages 21-22) that
the claims on appeal are directed to subject matter that was not
described in the specification in such a way as to enable one
skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention without undue
30
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007