Appeal 2007-0518
Application 90/006,969
B. Issue
1) The first issue before us is whether the Examiner has sufficiently
demonstrated that claims 31-40 are unpatentable under the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1?
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Examiner has failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that claims 31-40 are unpatentable under the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
2) Has the Examiner sufficiently demonstrated that claims 31-40 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2?
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Examiner has failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that claims 31-40 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
3) The last issue before us is whether the Examiner has sufficiently
demonstrated that there is a basis for rejecting the claims based on the prior
art relied on by the Examiner?
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Examiner has failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that there is a basis for rejecting the claims based
on the prior art relied on by the Examiner.
C. Findings of fact
The record supports the following findings of fact as well as any other
findings of fact set forth in this opinion by at least a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. Claims 1-18 and 31-40 are the subject of this appeal.
2. Claims 1-18 are original ‘787 patent claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013