Appeal No. 2006-1597
Application No. 09/218,822
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is made to
1
the Briefs and Answer for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by the
Examiner, the arguments in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation relied upon
by the Examiner as support for the prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that Appellants’ specification in
this application describes the claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the opinion that the disclosures of any of the
Riggins, Khosla, and Anderson references do not fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1-
16 and 18-25. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the Examiner’s assertion of lack of enablement of Appellants’
disclosure with respect to appealed claims 1-16 and 18-25 and note that, in order to comply with
the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the disclosure must adequately
describe the claimed invention so that the artisan could practice it without undue
1The Appeal Brief was filed March 7, 2005. In response to the Examiner’s Answer
mailed June 3, 2005, a Reply Brief was filed August 5, 2005, which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated November 2, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007