Appeal No. 94-2901
Application No. 07/837,666
subject matter which applicant "regards" as his invention
because the first and second sterilizations recited in claim
18, the repeated subsequent heat sterilizations recited in
claim 19, and the first and second sterilizations recited in
claims 20 through 22 are not limited to steam sterilizations.
A similar rejection was affirmed by another merits panel of
the Board in parent application Serial No. 07/067,001,
apparently on the basis of a statement in the previous Appeal
Brief that applicant intended to cover only steam
sterilization. See Appeal No. 91-2989, mailed January 14,
1992, page 8.
In this appeal, however, applicant makes clear that
the Board's . . . interpretation of appellant's
arguments in the parent case notwithstanding,
appellant has never asserted that steam
sterilization was the only type of sterilization
useful in the invention. [Appeal Brief, page 9, last
paragraph, emphasis added].
Suffice it to say, we find no evidence in this record
supporting a conclusion that claims 18 through 22 do not
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as his invention. Applicant's present
position, that his contribution goes beyond steam
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007