Appeal No. 97-2226 Page 6
Application No. 08/203,789
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Initially we note that the appellants' argument that the
examiner's answer set forth new grounds of rejections relates to
a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201.
Accordingly, we cannot review this issue raised by the appellants
on pages 1-2 of the reply brief.
The two independent claims (i.e., claims 1 and 22) on5
appeal each recite that the form-fitting surgical garment
5For consistency with the original disclosure which
disclosed only a single opening 16 in the hood piece 18, the
phrase "closable openings" in claim 1, paragraph b, and claim 22,
paragraph b, has been treated in this decision as having been
replaced by the phrase "a closeable opening." The appellants
should amend claims 1 and 22 accordingly.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007