Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
An interview was held between counsel for Appellant and
the Group Director (Paper No. 19) on September 7, 1995. The
interview summary states: "IT WAS AGREED THAT A CLARIFYING
ACTION WOULD BE PREPARED EXPLAINING THE ACTIONS TAKEN WITH
REGARD TO ALL CLAIMS, INCLUDING CLAIMS AT DISPUTE AS
READABLE ON THE ELECTED INVENTION."
The Examiner entered a non-final Office Action (Paper
No. 20) on October 13, 1995, vacating the Office Action of
August 3, 1995 (Paper No. 18) and again rejecting
claims 2-8, 17-23, 31-44, 99-112, and 121-134 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, per MPEP § 821 as
indefinite as not readable on the elected species of
figure 4.
Appellant sent a Letter (Paper No. 21) on
November 21, 1995, to the Group Director stating that the
action (Paper No. 20) of October 13, 1995, did not provide
substantive examination in accordance with the petition
decision (Paper No. 17).
In a Response Letter (Paper No. 22) entered
December 14, 1995, the Group Director noted that substantive
examination had taken place of approximately 19 more claims
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007