Appeal No. 2002-1593
Application 09/091,020
THE REJECTION
Claims 7 through 19 stand rejected as being based on a
specification which fails to comply with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Claims 7 through 19 also stand rejected as being based on a
specification which fails to comply with the enablement
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.3
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 25½ and 28) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 20 and 27) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the
merits of the rejection.
DISCUSSION
I. Petitionable matters
The appellants’ briefs and examiner’s answer touch upon
various objections made by the examiner during the prosecution of
the application to the drawings and to certain amendments filed
by the appellants. Since none of these objections is directly
connected with the merits of issues involving the above
3 The written description and enablement requirements of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, are separate and distinct. Vas-
Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007