Appeal 2007-0255
Application 10/331,878
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Perkins US 3,379,330 Apr. 23, 1968
Hunter US 6,037,033 Mar. 14, 2000
Appellant's remarks on page 5 of Amendment filed October 2, 2003.
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 53-62
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
enablement requirement, claims 24, 26, 29-32, 53, 55, and 58-60 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Perkins, claims 15-17, 20-23, 25, and
54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perkins, claims 18, 19, 27,
28, 56, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perkins in
view of Hunter, and claims 33-52, 61, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perkins in view of Hunter and Appellant's remarks on
page 5 of the Amendment filed October 2, 2003.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed July 12, 2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed April 27, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed September 12,
2006).
OPINION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner's basis for the rejection of claims 53-62 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as "failing to comply with the enablement
requirement" is that
[t]he claim(s) contains subject matter which was
not described in the specification in such a way as
to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013