Appeal No. 2002-0747 Page 5
Application No. 09/006,982
apparatus is operable without complete rotation of the chamber about the axis of air
flow. Moreover, the examiner has not provided evidentiary support for the allegation
that the invention is inoperable.
It therefore is clear to us that even if one considers that a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is proper when an invention is inoperable, in the present case the
evidence does not support a finding of inoperativeness, and this rejection of claims 1-18
cannot be sustained.
(2)
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, “because the
specification, while being enabling for a chamber which partially rotates, it [sic] does not
reasonably provide for an entire apparatus that rotates about . . . an axis” (Answer,
page 4). For the reasons explained above, it is our view that claim 1 does not require
that the chamber be rotatable completely around the axis of air flow, and therefore
enablement of the claimed invention is provided by the specification. The examiner’s
own words, quoted above, support this conclusion.
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is not
sustained.
(3)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007