Appeal No. 95-0386
Application No. 07/854,122
1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based
on a non-enabling disclosure; (2) claims 1 through 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite; and (3)
claims 1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Wu. However, in the Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No.
17), the examiner does not repeat or refer to the rejection of
claims 1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite. See particularly the Supplemental Examiner's
Answer, pages 1 and 2, summarizing the issues and the grounds
of rejection remaining on appeal. There, the examiner refers
to the rejection of all the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 103, but does not
refer to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. These facts permit only one plausible
interpretation, namely, that the examiner has dropped the
rejection of claims 1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. See Paperless Accounting v. Bay
Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 663, 231 USPQ 649,
652 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the issues remaining for review are:
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007