Appeal No. 2006-0970
Application No. 10/293,826
Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being unpatentable as directed to non-operable subject matter lacking
utility for such utility as is asserted being incredible.
Claims 1-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
unpatentable as failing to enable the use of the claimed subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention
The examiner argues that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable as non-
enabling because it is inoperable [See Answer at p. 4] and the disclosure is not
supported by either a specific asserted utility or a well established utility that one of
ordinary skill in the art would know how to implement. [See Non-Final Rejection p. 3]
As we noted above, there is sufficient evidence of operability that we cannot
conclude the claimed subject matter is inoperable. Further, the appellant points out
specific portions of the specification [e.g. paragraphs 26 to 38, 71 to 73 and 86 to 88]
that teach how to implement the claimed subject matter. [See Brief at p. 6]
Accordingly we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being unpatentable as failing to enable the use of the claimed subject
matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over
Moore in view of Naudin 1, The Lifters Experiments or Naudin 2, How to Build and
Replicate Yourself the Lifter1 Experiment, or Brown 1 and Kantrowitz
The examiner argues that the combination of a gaseous propulsion system (Moore)
with capacitive lift plates (Naudin 1 or 2 or Brown) coupled with well known use of an ion
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007