Appeal No. 98-0979 Page 9
Application No. 08/517,909
support his position no longer exists. However, the second
paragraph of MPEP § 2172.01 does state that
a claim which fails to interrelate essential elements of
the invention as defined by applicant(s) in the
specification may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph, for failure to point out and distinctly claim
the invention. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ
149 (CCPA 1976); In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ
266 (CCPA 1968).
Nevertheless, the examiner has failed to cite any passage of
the specification or in other statements of record that would
establish that any essential step has been omitted from the
claims under appeal. The mere fact that other steps have been
disclosed in the preferred embodiment does not render each and
every step thereof an essential step.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007