Appeal No. 2006-0102 Page 3
Application No. 09/732,439
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 59-63, 72 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a specification that fails to adequately describe the
claimed invention.
Claims 59-63, 72 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a disclosure that fails to enable the claimed
invention.
Claims 61-63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite in the recitation of the term “increased.”
Claims 59-61, 63, 72 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as
being anticipated by Verma II.
Claims 59-63, 72 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over the combination of Verma II and Rayapati.
We affirm the rejection under the written description provision of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, § 102(e), and § 103. Having disposed of all claims under the written
description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we do not reach the
rejection under the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
DISCUSSION
Definiteness:
Claims 61-63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite in the recitation of the term “increased.” According to the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007