Appeal No. 97-2554
Application No. 08/164,112
the odor of urine,” but on the other hand, evidently would not
meet some other (undisclosed) test, since it is disclosed on
page 9, lines 14 to 24, as “not able to reduce the odor of
urine.”
Accordingly, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claims 1, 3
to 7 and 10 to 16 are rejected as failing to comply with the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
In view of the foregoing, since the subject matter
defined by the claims is not clear and definite, the analysis
as to whether their scope is enabled cannot be made. In re
Moore, supra. The rejection under the first paragraph of §
112 is therefore reversed, pro forma. Cf. In re Steele, 305
F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). This is not to
say, however, that if the rejection under the second paragraph
of § 112 were overcome the rejection under the first paragraph
would necessarily be inapplicable.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3 to 7 and 10
to 16 is reversed, and said claims are rejected pursuant to 37
CFR
§ 1.196(b).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007