Appeal No. 97-0256
Application 08/233,215
the claimed invention from the writing pad of PT and the article
in Rogow motivated by having first viewed appellant’s disclosed
and claimed invention. We do not believe that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have used the teachings of the frangible
line in the specialized receipt/ledger book of Clarkson to modify
the simple writing pad of PT or the article in Rogow. Thus, the
examiner’s rejections of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
will not be sustained.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.196(b)(effective Dec. 1,
1997), the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is empowered
to reject “any pending claim” in an application if they should have
knowledge of grounds of rejection not involved in the appeal. We
enter the following new ground of rejection against claims 3, 6 and
7 of the present application.
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being directed to subject matter which finds no clear
“written description” support in the specification as originally
filed. Looking to the disclosure of the application as originally
filed, we note that independent claim 1 in its present form on
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007