Appeal No. 2004-0131
Application No. 08/462,531
A copy of independent claims 2 and 17 is set forth in the
attached appendix.1
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Novitske 3,416,174 Dec. 17, 1968
Hlustik 4,272,858 June 16, 1981
Stewart et al. (Stewart) 4,759,136 July 26, 1988
Pasternak 4,858,340 Aug. 22, 1989
As a preliminary matter, we observe that it is disputed as
to the particular rejections involved in this appeal. Beginning
at the bottom of page 7 of the brief, appellant states that the
examiner’s objection to the specification2 is based upon an
inadequate written description, yet the rejection of the claims
appears to be directed to lack of enablement3.
At the bottom of page 6 of the answer, the examiner states
that the specification lacks in both the written description
requirement and the enablement requirement.
The rejection of the claims set forth on page 5 of the
answer is therefore under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
written description and enablement. We therefore address both
enablement and written description in this appeal.
1 The copy of claim 2 from appellant’s brief does not include the
changes made in the entered amendment filed on December 11, 2002. The
correct copy of claim 2 is in our attached Appendix.
2 See page 3 of the answer.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007