Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
forth in claims 20-24. After careful review of the arguments of
record, however, we are in agreement with Appellants’ position as
stated in the Brief. As asserted by Appellants (Brief, pages 30-
32), the Examiner, aside from a general allegation of
insufficiency, has never specifically indicated how Appellants’
disclosure would not be enabling with regard to the particular
features recited in claims 20-24. We find no basis for the
Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary skill would not be able
to implement, without undue experimentation, the claimed weighted
integration functions, especially in view of Appellant’s disclosure
at paragraphs 56-62 of the specification, as well as the evidence
presented in the Attachments I and II appended to the Brief, which
had previously been submitted in the amendment filed October 29,
2003, Paper No. 5.
In view of the above, since we find that the Examiner has not
established a reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency of
the instant disclosure with respect to claims 20-24, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 20-24 under the enabling clause of
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007