Appeal No. 2006-1246 Page 3
Application No. 09/726,372
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
(a) Claims 28 to 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, as lacking
an adequate written description in the specification as originally filed.
(b) Claims 28, 29, 51, 52 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by the Heyes.
(c) Claims 30 to 50, 53 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Heyes and Takano.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(mailed December 15, 2005) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (filed October 19, 2005) for the Appellants’ arguments they’re against.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and the
Examiner, we affirm the rejection under § 112, first paragraph. We enter a new ground of
rejection and reverse the remaining rejections on procedural basis.
112 First Paragraph Rejection
Claims 28 to 55 stand rejected under 35 USC § 112 first paragraph, as lacking an
adequate written description in the specification as originally filed.
It is well settled that a specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with reasonable clarity to those
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007