Appeal No. 2006-1759 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/984,184
the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-50 and 52-69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Collin in view of Mellul. Claims 51 and
52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Collin in view of Mellul and Papantoniou.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
We have carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief and the examiner’s
position as set forth in the answer. We affirm the examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejections. However, we reverse the examiner’s § 112,
first paragraph rejection and the examiner’s § 112, second
paragraph rejection. Our reasoning follows.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007