Appeal No. 96-2697
Application 08/215,170
examiner during the course of earlier prosecution and was
overcome by appellant. Appellant basically argues that a new
examiner should not be permitted to reassert all the
rejections which were previously overcome by appellant during
prosecution before other examiners. Although we are
sympathetic to appellant’s frustration caused by the course of
prosecution in this application and the parent application,
our jurisdiction does not extend to these matters. Our
jurisdiction is limited to a consideration of the propriety of
rejections on the merits. The issues raised by appellant
regarding the prosecution of this application should have been
raised by appropriate and timely petition to the Commissioner.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-
26 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. This
rejection resulted from an amendment to the specification and
the claims which identified the relationship of the
composition of materials in the SOG as specific values of
molar ratios. The original specification and claims only
referred to the components as having respective percentages by
volume of the total mixture. The examiner’s rejection asserts
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007