Appeal No. 95-3114 Application 08/051,800 the examiner's requiring the election of species in the first place, and as such, addresses a matter which is not within our jurisdiction. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 233, 14 USPQ2d 1407, 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d at 1404, 169 USPQ at 479-80. Our jurisdiction here is limited to deciding the correctness of the § 112 rejection, i.e., whether claims 3 et al. are readable on the elected species of Fig. 1. For the reasons already discussed above, we conclude that they are not. Moreover, even if Fig. 4 were somehow determined not to be new matter, and part of the elected species, these claims would still not be readable on it because the anchorage portion of Fig. 4 is not “lamellar.” Since claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 23 and 24 are not readable on the elected species, they are indefinite under the rationale set forth in MPEP § 821, supra. The rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, will therefore be sustained. Conclusion The examiner's decision (1) to reject claims 1, 6 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed; 14Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007