Appeal No. 2005-2695
Application No. 10/280,926
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Dingwall 4,571,816 Feb. 25, 1986
Kim 5,895,940 April 20, 1999
Claims 17-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.1 The claims contain subject matter
which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to
one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time of the application was filed,
had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 7-12, 16-18, and 21-24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard as the
invention. Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Kim. Claims 16-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim in view of Dingwall.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed Mar. 31, 2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
1 In light of our following discussion with respect to the written description requirement, we leave it
to the examiner’s consideration of also entering a rejection under a lack of enablement requirement.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007