Appeal No. 98-1012
Serial No. 08/117,342
examiner=s answer, paper no. 53, p.1).
Finally, appellants (fifth reply brief, paper no. 54)
filed a Rule 132 Declaration to support their position that no
undue experimentation is required. However, upon the Board=s
initial review of the record, it was apparent that the
examiner did not have the opportunity to consider the
declaration and for this reason, among others, the application
was remanded (paper no. 56, mailed May 28, 1998) to the
examiner. Given the examiner=s response that the Areply brief
of November 17, 1997 has been entered and considered but no
further response by the examiner is deemed necessary,@ (paper
no. 57, mailed August 3, 1998), we are satisfied that the
opportunity to review the declaration has been taken.
Grounds of Rejection
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007