Appeal No. 2002-2112
Application No. 08/949,534
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13 and 15 through 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
admitted prior art3 in view of Davis.
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13 and 15 through 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ninomiya in view of McLaughlin.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 62 and 64) and
the answer (paper number 63) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
For substantially all of the reasons expressed by the
appellant4, and for the additional reasons set forth infra, we will
reverse all of the rejections of record.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection, the
examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 6) that the claimed
3 We agree with appellant’s argument (brief, page 24) that
he has limited his admission of prior art to Figure 1. No amount
of discussion of Figure 2 will convert the subject matter
disclosed therein into admitted prior art (answer, pages 8 and
9).
4 We disagree with appellant’s statement (brief, page 18)
that “[a] technique cannot be both non-enabled yet obvious.” We
are not aware of any Office policy or case law that prohibits
both a lack of enablement rejection and an obviousness rejection
of the same claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007