Appeal No. 2002-1339
Application No. 09/148,239
Claims 2-4 and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a nonenabling disclosure.
Claims 1-17 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Imamura with regard
to claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15-17, adding Tang with regard to claims
8, 14 and 24.
A rejection of claims 1-17 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, has been withdrawn by the examiner (answer,
page 10) and forms no part of this appeal.
Reference is made to the brief (paper no. 9) and answer
(paper no. 10) for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
With regard to the enablement rejection, the examiner
contends that the language in the claims pertaining to the total
mass of the rotor portion and transducer being “less than
100:g,” “less than 50:g,” and “less than 10:g” was not described
in the specification in an enabling manner. In particular, the
examiner says these recited ranges include values approaching
zero and it is “unclear as to how one . . . can obtain a weight
as small as that encompassed by claims 2-4 and 15-17” (answer,
page 3). The examiner further states that “it is unclear at what
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007