Appeal 2007-0003
Application 10/217,990
III. Claims 1-7 and 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Botzem and Schutz.
IV. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Botzem, Schutz, and Vanderklaauw.
I. Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in such a way as to
enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention.
The issue presented is: Has the Examiner established that the subject
matter of claims 1-18 does not meet the enablement requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph? We answer this question in the negative.
The Examiner contends that the Specification does not have an
enabling disclosure for the subject matter of claims 1-18. Specifically, the
Examiner states, “[t]he claims are supported by the specification that
contains subject matter which was not described in such a way as to enable
one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification recites
questionable terms such as ‘alchemic transition unit’, ‘device for
transforming abiogenic substances into biogenic substances’, or ‘absorptive
magnetic resonances emitted from the center of the Earth (or from space)
and impinging upon the lower part of the apparatus’, or rotating and charged
magnetic resonances.” (Answer 4).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the Examiner asserts the claims “recite
means for manipulation and transforming toxic fluids into non-toxic ones.
The specification does not provide the description on how to achieve such a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013