Appeal No. 96-0655
Application No. 08/052,507
optionally in view of Schön” (Answer, page 5). Claim 10 3
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
references as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Hull,
Elsas, and Rupe (Answer, page 6). Claims 11 and 12 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
references as applied to claim 10 further in view of Lampe
3The examiner’s second rejection of the claims dated Dec.
7, 1994, Paper No. 7, included a rejection of claim 10 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see page 1 of Paper
No. 7). Appellant has submitted a proposed amendment to claim
10 and the examiner has stated that the rejection of claim 10
under the second paragraph of § 112 is withdrawn (see the
Reply to Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 28, 1995, Paper No. 11,
page 2, the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated Nov. 6, 1995,
Paper No. 12, page 3, and the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
dated Mar. 12, 1996, Paper No. 14, page 1). However,
appellant has only submitted a supplemental Appendix with
amended claim 10 therein (see the Letter dated Nov. 20, 1995,
Paper No. 13, and page 1 of Paper No. 14). No actual
amendment to claim 10 has been submitted by appellant nor has
any amendment to claim 10 been physically entered into the
file record. Upon return of this application to the examiner,
this deficiency must be corrected. For purposes of this
appeal, we will consider the rejection of claim 10 under § 112
to be withdrawn.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007