Appeal No. 1996-3591
Application No. 08/251,053
24, 1996, that the response overcame the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-7. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 8-14 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 remains an issue to be decided in this appeal.3
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answers for the 4
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness
3Appellants’ representative at oral hearing on November
2, 1999 acknowledged an apparent inadvertent error at line 8
of claim 1 which presently recites “... to unstabilize...”
instead of the intended “...to stabilize...” Appellants’
representative agreed to correct such error by amendment at an
appropriate later time.
4The Appeal Brief was filed December 1, 1995. Reply
Briefs were filed by Appellants on April 29, 1996 and Oct. 18,
1996 (Supplemental) and entered by the Examiner as indicated
in the Supplemental Examiner’s Answers dated May 24, 1996 and
December 11, 1996. The Reply Briefs filed on July 29, 1996
and February 18, 1997 (Supplemental) were considered by the
Examiner as not being limited to new points of argument or to
new grounds of rejection and were not entered. Accordingly,
the arguments in such Reply Briefs have not been considered in
this appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007