Appeal No. 2004-0921
Application No. 09/472,134
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which lacks an
enabling disclosure of the claimed invention.
Claims 60, 73, 85, 88 and 92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based on a specification which
lacks a written description of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 through 49, 55, 57, 58, 64 through 68, 77 through
84, 87, 88 and 90 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter the appellants regard as the invention.
Claim 73 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Japanese Patent Document 2-274681 to Kitamura et
al. (Kitamura).1
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 35 and 39) and to the answer (Paper No. 38) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner regarding
the merits of these rejections.2
1 The record contains an English language translation of the
Kitamura reference submitted by the appellants on February 14,
2003 (Paper No. 29).
2 The record indicates that the inclusion of canceled claim
76 in the examiner’s statement of the first rejection, the
inclusion of canceled claim 89 in the examiner’s statement of the
second rejection and the omission of claims 58 and 88 from the
examiner’s statement of the third rejection stem from inadvertent
oversights which have not prejudiced the appellants to any
significant degree.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007