Appeal No. 1999-2058
Application 08/433,643
Claims 4 and 7
Claim 4 depends on claim 2 and further recites
limitations which are already found in claim 1. For this
reason, we enter a new ground of rejection infra under
35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. It appears that when
Appellants submitted the amendment (Paper No. 11) on
June 9, 1997, to incorporate the subject matter of claim 3
(which contained essentially identical subject matter to
claim 4, but which depended from claim 1) into claim 1,
Appellants inadvertently forgot to cancel claim 4 which
duplicates this subject matter.
The limitations of claim 4 are found in claim 1, which
has already been addressed. The rejection of claims 4 and 7
is sustained.
Claim 5
The Examiner finds (FR6) that Endo teaches the feature of
claim 5 at column 2, lines 3-24. Appellants argue that the
applied prior art does not teach this feature, but does not
address the Examiner's reasoning (Br9).
It is Appellants' responsibility to specify the errors in
the rejection. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv). General allegations
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007