Appeal No. 2005-1247
Application No. 09/963,423 Page 3
Lange et al. (Lange) 6,096,805 Aug. 01, 2000
Claims 2-11, 13-21, 25, 27 and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as being based on a non-enabling
disclosure. Claims 2-11, 13-20, 25, 27 and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Reiff ‘370,
Reiff, 482 or Reiff ‘737. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reiff ‘370, Reiff, 482
or Reiff ‘737, each in view of Lange.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having considered the entire record of this application,
including the arguments advanced by both the examiner and
appellants in support of their respective positions, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants’ position in that the
examiner has not met the burden to show, prima facie: (1) that
the claimed subject matter is not enabled by the original
disclosure of the application; (2) that the applied prior art
anticipates the subject matter of claims 2-11, 13-20, 25, 27 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007