Appeal No. 1995-1162
Application 07/725,943
they were entered and considered, what her substantive response is.
As to claim 35, we note that it is dependent upon claim 21, which in turn is
dependent upon claim 1. See p. 2, above. Thus, claims 1 and 21 manifestly encompass
embodiments which possess the limitations set forth in claim 35. Accordingly, it logically
follows that if claim 35 fails to satisfy the requirements of the first and second paragraphs
of §112, claims 1 and 21 also fail to satisfy these requirements. Since the examiner has
erred in failing to include all the relevant claims in the rejection, we are constrained to
reverse. Moreover, we point out that here, too, the examiner has erred in not responding to
the appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 35. Brief, p. 13.
Since neither rejection is based upon the correct legal standards and the examiner
has not acknowledged and responded to the appellants’ arguments, we reverse.
translations thereof.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007