Appeal Number: 2006-1694
Application Number: 10/131,607
address on the record whether the appellants’ mere mention of steps unknown in
the art (page 7, line 14 – page 8, line 4) would have enabled one of ordinary skill in
the art to carry out the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mücke
and claims 1, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reesor are affirmed. The
rejection of claims 3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement
requirement, is reversed. The application is remanded to the examiner under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1)(2004).
1 The appellants do not address claim 5.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013