Appeal No. 95-4147
Application 08/151,454
applied above further in view of Desjarlais, Smith, Barton and
Rohowetz (Answer, page 6). The examiner has made a new ground
of rejection in the Answer of all the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pointon (Answer, page 8). We reverse all 3
of the examiner’s rejections for reasons which follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, Second Paragraph
The examiner concludes that the phrase “generally being
ink-impermeable” recited in appealed claims 1, 15 and 20 is
“vague and indefinite” because something is or is not
impermeable (Answer, page 3). The examiner states that the
word “impermeable” does not define a matter of degree but is
an absolute (sentence bridging pages 3-4 of the Answer).
3The new ground of rejection of claims 14 and 29 under the
second paragraph of § 112 has been withdrawn in view of the
entry of appellant’s amendment dated June 19, 1995, Paper No.
8 (see the Supplemental Answer dated July 10, 1995, Paper No.
9, page 2).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007