Appeal No. 96-3938
Application No. 08/288,861
Tang et al. 4,717,749 Jan. 5, 1988
(Tang)
Diehl et al. 5,143,968 Sep. 1, 1992
(Diehl)
Debier et al. 5,300,582 Apr. 5, 1994
(Debier)
Kamiya (JP) 54-127930 Oct. 4, 1979
Claim 20 stands finally rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellant regards as his invention.3
Claims 10 through 25 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based upon a nonenabling
disclosure.
3In his answer, the examiner has included claim 21 in
this rejection on the grounds that this claim is a duplicate
of claim 12. For a number of reasons, it is quite apparent
that the inclusion of claim 21 in the above noted rejection
was an inadvertent oversight on the examiner’s part. This is
because of the fact that claim 21 was not included in the
rejection set forth in the final office action coupled with
the fact that the examiner has explicitly stated that his
answer “does not contain any new ground of rejection” (answer,
page 5). Additionally, claim 21 is unquestionably not a
duplicate of claim 12 since the dependencies of these claims
differ. For these reasons, we consider the section 112,
second paragraph, rejection before us on this appeal to not
include claim 21 as reflected above.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007