Appeal No. 2006-1660
Application No. 10/609,087
Appealed claims 68 and 71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, description requirement. The appealed
claims also stand rejected under prior art as follows:
(a) claims 42-50, 70 and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Senga;
(b) claims 1, 35-50, 60-67, 69, 70 and 72 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Senga in view of Koyama;
(c) claims 42-50 and 70-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Campbell; and
(d) claims 1, 35-50 and 60-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Koyama.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we agree
with appellants that the examiner's § 112, first paragraph
rejection is not sustainable. However, we are in complete
agreement with the examiner that the claimed subject matter is
unpatentable over the cited prior art for essentially those
reasons expressed by the examiner. Our reasoning follows:
We consider first the examiner's rejection under § 112,
first paragraph. It is the examiner's position that the
original specification does not provide descriptive support for
the exclusion of lithium halide, as recited in claims 68 and 71.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007