Ex parte MILETI - Page 9




          Appeal No. 96-3885                                                          
          Application No. 08/255,076                                                  


          column 6, lines 64, 65) of a plastic tube 55 would have been                
          suggestive of the selection of an appropriate material from among           
          conventional plastic materials (claims 2 and 3).  Similarly, the            
          teaching of plastic sheets (such as polyethylene) by Waters                 
          (column 5, lines 3 through 6) would have been suggestive of the             
          selection of an appropriate plastic material (claim 6).  In our             
          opinion, the recitation of “sewing or other convenient operation”           
          by Waters (column 3, lines 52 through 55) would have been                   
          understood as encompassing other known forms of securement and              
          suggestive of, for example, adhesive (claim 7).                             


               This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to           
          37 CFR  1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule             
          notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off.              
          Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).  37 CFR             
          1.196(b) provides that, “A new ground of rejection shall not be             
          considered final for purposes of judicial review.”                          
               37 CFR  1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN             
          TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of              
          the following two options with respect to the new ground of                 




                                          9                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007