Appeal 2007-0656
Application 10/653,584
2. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as the
added claim language “substantially entirely” fails to comply with the
written description requirement.
3. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
the claim language “substantially entirely” renders the claim indefinite
by failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Appellant does not separately argue the claims. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as the representative claim on which to render our opinion.
OPINION
In the non-final Office Action mailed June 16, 2005, the Examiner made
§ 103(a) rejections to which the Appellant responded on August 11, 2005
with an Amendment adding the claim features that the inner layer is formed
“substantially entirely” of polypropylene and that the peel-seal layer “is
substantially thinner than the inner layer.” In response to the August 11,
2005 Amendment, the Examiner withdrew the § 103(a) rejections and made
the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections that are presently on appeal (Final Office
Action mailed November 3, 2005). Appellant subsequently filed an after-
final Amendment on April 21, 2006 in which he cancelled the word
“substantially” from the added claim phrase “is substantially thinner than the
inner layer.” In response to this amendment, the Examiner withdrew his §
112, 1st paragraph, written description rejection of claim 5. However, after
an appeal conference, the Examiner reinstated the § 112, 1st paragraph,
written description rejection of claim 5 as a “New Grounds of Rejection” in
the Examiner’s Answer (Answer 3). In response to the “New Grounds of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013