Appeal 2006-0899
Application 09/912,290
Brandt et al. (Brandt) WO 94/16162 July 21, 1994
(Published International Patent Application)
Michelsen US 5,765,318 June 16, 1998
III. REJECTION
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement;
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
the disclosure of Brandt; and
3. Claims 3, and 6 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Brandt and Michelsen.
IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCULSIONS
We have carefully considered the claims, specification and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by both the Appellants and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions. This review has led us to
conclude that only the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the
Answer are well-founded. Accordingly, we will only sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting the claims on appeal under §§ 102 and 103 for the factual
findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We will not sustain the
Examiner’s § 112 rejection. Our reasons for these determinations follow.
1. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
With respect to the description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, the court stated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375,
217 U.S.P.Q. 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983) that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007