Appeal No. 1998-2107
Application No. 08/137,624
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
1. Claims 1-7, 14-20, 22-24 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. According to the examiner, “[t]he terms ‘Flexible’, [sic] ‘hydrophilic’,
[sic] [and] ‘polymeric’ in claim 59 leave too much conception to the reader.”
2. Claims5 1-7, 14-20, 22-24, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
over Vanderkooi.
3. Claims 1-7 and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vanderkooi as applied to claims 22-24 and 26-59 above6,
and further in view of Liu.
4. Claims 30-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Morrison.
5. Claims 30-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kahl in view of Ellis.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 30-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Morrison. For reasons which follow, the remaining
rejections set forth by the examiner, identified, supra, as rejections 1-3 and 5 are not
in condition for a decision on appeal. Therefore, we vacate rejections 1-3 and 5,
and remand the application to the examiner to consider the following issues and to
take appropriate action.
DISCUSSION
5 We note that canceled claim 10 was incorrectly recited by the examiner in this
ground of rejection. This error was corrected herein above.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007