Appeal No. 1998-2823
Application No. 08/458,010
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 8,
9, 15, 17, 20 through 22, 26, 27 and 32 through 51 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.5
At the outset we note that at page 2 of the final
rejection (Paper No. 35) the examiner objected to the
specification “under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to provide an
adequate written description of the invention” and as failing
to “provide support for the invention as is now claimed.”
Regarding the failing to "provide support” issue, the examiner
stated that “[t]he claimed invention, e.g., claims 17, 20-22,
34, 38 and 44, i.e., ‘non-resilient,’ does not to [sic] appear
to be supported by the specification as originally filed.”
See final rejection, p. 3. However, this ground of rejection
has been withdrawn. See advisory action mailed March 25, 1997
(Paper No. 40) and the answer, p. 2.
We note that the language “the replaceable window” in claim 17 lacks5
antecedent basis in the claim and should properly read --the removable window-
-. This informality is worthy of correction upon return of the application to
the jurisdiction of the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007