Appeal No. 2006-1123
Application No. 09/766,934
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ensel in view of Siemens.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ensel in view of Mitra et al.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ensel in view of Logan et al.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (mailed July 13, 2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to appellant's brief (filed April 6, 2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being unpatentable
for lacking enablement
Appellant presents no argument rebutting the examiner’s rejection, but merely
asserts that “Appellant respectfully disagrees.”
In the absence of any evidence or specific argument proffered by the Appellant
that claim 12 is properly enabled, we must sustain the rejection.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
unpatentable for lacking enablement is sustained.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007