Appeal No. 2004-0587
Application 09/054,304
Throughout our opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and the answer2 for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the argument of the
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 11, and
14 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
As noted by our reviewing court in Enzo v. Calgene, 188 F.3
1362, 1371, 52 USPQ2d 1129, 1135 “[t]he statutory basis for the
enablement requirement is found in Section 112, Para. 1, which
provides in relevant part that:
1
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 30, 2001. The
Examiner mailed out an office communication stating that the
appeal brief was defective on October 10, 2001. Appellants filed
a corrected appeal brief on November 13, 2001. We will simply
refer to this brief as the brief. Appellants filed a reply brief
on July 21, 2003. The Examiner mailed out an office
communication on August 25, 2003, stating that the reply brief
has been entered into the record.
2
2 The Examiner mailed out an Examiner’s answer on May 21,
2003. We will refer to this Examiner’s answer as simply the
answer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007