Appeal No. 95-2270
Application 08/005,856
(3) cancellation of page 13 of the specification
(insofar as we can tell, applicants made no
request for cancellation of any part of the
specification, and in particular, did not
request cancellation of page 13).
A copy of the amendment designated internally by the PTO as
"amendment B", containing clerical entries based on the amendment
designated internally as "amendment C" is Appendix 1 to our
opinion.
13. On January 15, 1993, applicants filed what is
known as a "Rule 62" continuation application of application
07/850,711. The Rule 62 continuation application was assigned
Application No. 08/005,856, and is the application on appeal.
14. In a document styled PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT (Paper
No. 11), applicants requested entry of claims 45-54.
15. The descriptive part of applicants specification
of the application on appeal should consist of pages 1-13. The2
descriptive part of the specification of the application on
appeal is the same as the descriptive part of the specification
While applicants bear no responsibility for the PTO's apparent2
inadvertent cancellation of page 13, it is our opinion that the easiest way
to correct the specification would be for applicants to submit an amendment,
along with a clean copy of page 13, and ask that "new" page 13 be added following
page 12. Clearly, no new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132) is involved inasmuch as page
13 was part of the original specification and applicants never requested its
cancellation from the specification.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007