Appeal No. 95-2233
Application 07/978,014
Narayanan, and Morner. On consideration of the record, we
summarily reverse this rejection because the examiner does not
state a prima facie case of obviousness which complies with the
guidelines and criteria set forth in MPEP § 706.02(j) (6th
Edition, Rev. 2, July 1996) entitled “Contents of a 35 U.S.C. 103
Rejection”. See the Examiner’s Answer, pages 3 and 4.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Claims 2, 4 through 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC
§ 112, second paragraph, as misdescriptive and as not
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter which applicants regard as their invention.
In Paper No. 3 filed November 4, 1993, page 3, first
paragraph, applicants state that the binder in claim 2 is limited
to AgrimerŪ AL 10 or AgrimerŪ VA 6 or mixtures thereof. Based on
that statement, and further based on our review of the instant
specification and the claims on appeal, we believe that
applicants intend to limit the binder in their claims to AgrimerŪ
AL 10 or AgrimerŪ VA 6 or mixtures thereof. See particularly
page 7 of the specification, Examples 2, 3, and 4. However, the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007