Appeal No. 2006-0102 Page 14
Application No. 09/732,439
On reflection, we find that the weight of the evidence falls in favor of the
examiner. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 59 under the written
description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. As discussed supra
claims 60-63, 72 and 73 fall together with claim 59.
Enablement:
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.
Having disposed of all claims under the written description provision of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we do not reach the merits of the rejection under
the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Anticipation:
The instant application is a divisional of United States Application No.
08/599,714, filed January 19, 1996, now United States Patent No. 6,281,411
(‘411). The ‘411 patent is a continuation-in-part of United States Application No.
08/113,561 (‘561), filed August 25, 1993. According to appellants (Brief, page 9),
the instant application claims priority to the ‘561 application filed August 25,
1993. The examiner does not dispute that the instant application receives benefit
of the filing date of the ‘561 application. Therefore, the effective filing date of the
instant application is August 25, 1993.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007