Appeal No. 2005-2760
Application 09/915,963
other is in free space. None of applicant’s invention meets
these two criteria.”
The examiner’s explanation is not persuasive of
nonenablement. The examiner now appears to be requiring
appellant to add limitations into claims 2 and 12. Not only is
the addition of limitations appellant’s call, but, as appellant
explains, at page 2 of the reply brief, the examiner’s
“requirement” is unnecessary since, by definition, a traveling
wave having a velocity greater than the speed of light is already
a fast wave in free space.
Since the examiner has not reasonably shown that having a
phase velocity “greater than the speed of light,” as claimed,
would cause the skilled artisan to not be able to make and use
the claimed invention, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Turning, now, to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13,
and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), we also will not sustain this
rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007