Appeal No. 2004-2355
Application No. 09/935,721 Page 9
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1-6 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as being
based on a non-enabling disclosure; to reject claims 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a non-
enabling disclosure; and to reject claims 1-6 and 10-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as lacking written descriptive
support in the application, as filed is reversed.
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PETER F. KRATZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
PFK/sld
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007