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