Appeal No. 2004-0030 Page 13
Application No. 09/337,492
From the examiner's incorrect characterization of flexible
members 15 "urging" the frame 11' against the latch 5, we find
that the examiner has misconstrued the disclosure described in
appellant's specification.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of non-enablement. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 24, 26 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 24, 26 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007