Appeal No. 97-2715
Application No. 08/306,797
found via the luxury of hindsight, which is not a proper
basis. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The reasoning set forth above for not sustaining the
rejection of method claim 1 also applies to claim 3, which is
directed to an apparatus for practicing the method of claim 1,
and which requires at least three rollers arranged so as to
contact the surface of the strand and “means for separating
the rollers to permit placement of the strand between them and
for causing said contact after said placement.” The rejection
of claims 3-6 will not be sustained.
Claim 7 is drawn to a shirred food casing strand “rolled
at three simultaneous lines of contact extending along the
entire length of the casing.” While this is a product-by-
process claim, the examiner’s reasoning in rejecting it is the
same as that which we found fatally defective above. The same
holds true here, and therefore the rejection of claim 7 also
will not be sustained.
New Rejection Under 37 CFR 1.196(b)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007