Appeal No. 2001-1466
Application 09/055,899
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, rejection of claim 9.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims
12 through 17
Claim 12 depends indirectly from claim 1 and further
defines the applicator recited therein as being fitted so as
to slide inside the neck of the claimed liquid product
packaging and applying unit. The examiner considers this
claim, and claims 13 through 17 which depend therefrom, to be
indefinite because the Figure 3 species elected by the
appellant does not include such a slidable applicator. The
examiner characterizes the issue as being one of disagreement
with the appellant as to whether claims 12 through 17 read on
the elected Figure 3 species, and relies on MPEP § 821 for
justification of the subject rejection under these
circumstances.
(inner) end of the applicator is located above the level of
the product. It is also noted that the references in claim 3
to the “body” lack a proper antecedent basis. These matters
should be addressed in any further prosecution before the
examiner.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007