Appeal No. 96-0926
Application No. 07/995,683
compulsive disorder;
terminating the self-induced hypnosis; and
terminating the self-administered acupressure.
THE REJECTIONS
The examiner has not relied on any prior art to reject
the appealed claims. Rather claims 3 and 4 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellant regards as his invention. Claims 4 and 5
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
failing to provide an enabling disclosure. We reverse.
OPINION
The examiner has not set forth in his Answer a statement
of any of the rejections before us. Rather, the examiner has
referred us to the Final Rejection wherein we are informed
[t]he rejections are the same as those set forth in
the Final Office Action, paper #6, except that the
rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
In Paper Number 6, the examiner explains that because
appellant discloses the use of a "kit" as a means to apply
acupressure and a means to induce hypnosis, the apparatus of
claims 3 and 4 must be claimed as a "kit".
We are unable to determine if the examiner's position is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007