Appeal No. 1999-0347 Page 4
Application No. 08/804,635
(1) Claims 1 to 4 and 8 to 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not
described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the appellant,
at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention;
(2) Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 to 18 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the Honigsbaum letter and the
Kari letter (the printed publication rejection);
(3) Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 to 18 as being "on
sale" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as evidenced by the Honigsbaum
letter and the Kari letter;
(4) Claims 1, 2, 8, 12 to 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ball; and
4(...continued)
final rejection were not set forth in the examiner's answer we
assume that these other grounds of rejection have been
withdrawn by the examiner. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180,
181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007