Ex Parte Cornelius et al - Page 3

               Appeal 2007-0928                                                                             
               Application 09/943,964                                                                       
               Sato     US 6,718,482 B2  Apr. 6, 2004                                                       
                                                                  (filed Jan. 19, 2001)                     
               Ahmed   US 6,813,634 B1  Nov. 2, 2004                                                        
                                                                  (filed Feb. 3, 2000)                      
                      Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as                 
               being based on an inadequate disclosure.  Claim 22 stands rejected under                     
               35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ahmed.  Claims 1-12 stand                         
               rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view                   
               of Sato.  Claims 13-21 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As                     
               evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Ullman in view of Sato with                     
               respect to claims 13, 16, 18, and 21, adds Short to the basic combination                    
               with respect to claims 14 and 15, adds Pocrass to the basic combination with                 
               respect to claim 17, and adds Hirosawa to the basic combination with respect                 
               to claims 19 and 20.  Claim 23 stands rejected as being unpatentable over                    
               Ahmed in view of Niemat.                                                                     
                      Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,                   
               reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details.  Only                 
               those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this                     
               decision.  Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to                       
               make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed waived [see                       
               37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].                                                               
                                               ISSUES                                                       
                      (i)      Under  35  U.S.C  §  112,  first  paragraph, does  Appellants’               
               disclosure satisfy the “written description” and “enabling” clauses of the                   
               statute?                                                                                     



                                                     3                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013