Appeal No. 2005-1510
Application No. 09/883,279
improving safety. A further understanding of the invention can
be derived from a reading of claims 1 and 2 on appeal. A copy of
those claims can be found in the Appendix to appellant’s brief.
No prior art is relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described
in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in
the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's commentary with regard
to the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed April 6, 2004)
for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s
brief (filed January 14, 2004) and reply brief (filed June 4,
2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007