Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
sheets before they are stacked or run back through a printing
press for a second time. The claims on appeal are reproduced
in the appendix of appellants’ brief.
The references applied by the examiner in the final
rejection are:
Bubley et al. (Bubley) 4,434,562 Mar. 6,
1984
Wimberger et al. (Wimberger) 5,092,059 Mar. 3,
1992
Anderson 5,099,586 Mar.
31, 1992
The following rejections are before us for review:1
(a) claims 1, 5, 6 and 21-28, rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite;2
1The final rejection of claims 5, 6, 20 and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been overcome by the
amendment submitted April 6, 2000 (see Paper No. 18). The
final rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 18 and 20-31 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting has been overcome by the terminal disclaimer
submitted April 6, 2000 (see Paper No. 20).
2Although the statement of this rejection was not repeated
in the examiner’s answer, it is clear from the record as a
whole (answer, paragraph spanning pages 6-7; brief, pages 5-7
(issue 2 and discussion thereof)) that both the examiner and
appellants consider this ground of rejection to be maintained
on appeal. Accordingly, the failure of the examiner to
provide a statement of this rejection in the answer is
considered to be a harmless oversight.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007