Appeal No. 1996-0941
Application 08/091,421
invention as now claimed.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this
rejection. However, we affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ § 102(b) and 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The examiner argues that appellant’s claims 8-26 do not
have support in appellant’s original specification because the
original specification does not include the term “aluminous
cement” recited in appellant’s independent claims 8 and 15
which were added by amendment.
Regarding independent claim 14, the amendment (filed
October 25, 1994, Paper No. 12) in which this claim was
amended to include the term “aluminous cement” was not entered
by the examiner (advisory action mailed October 27, 1994,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007