Appeal No. 2003-1622
Application No. 09/146,529
Holmann et al. (Holmann) 5,815,6981 Sep. 29, 1998
(Filing date Jan. 27, 1997)
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
appellants regard as the invention. Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. Claims 1-25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Holmann (JP 08203675).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 26, mailed Jan. 15, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ supplemental brief (Paper No. 25, filed Oct. 17, 2002)
and reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed Mar. 14, 2003) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
1 Here, we note that the examiner relies upon the teachings of Holmann in the Japanese
published patent rather than the US patent to Holmann since the present application and Holmann have
one inventor in common. But for ease of application of the prior art, the examiner refers to the teachings
of Holmann (the US patent) as the translation of Holmann (Japanese patent) since the US patent claims
foreign priority to the Japanese application (patent). Appellants have not objected to the use of the US
counterpart patent as representative of an accurate translation of the Japanese patent. Therefore, we will
similarly refer to the US patent in our discussion of the prior art.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007