Appeal No. 1997-0174 Page 5
Application No. 08/302,207
Initially we note that issue A (brief, pp. 4 and 5-6),
whether the specification is properly objected to as failing
to provide proper antecedent basis for claim 8, relates to a
petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201.
In our view, this objection set forth on page 2 of the final
rejection does not constitute a rejection of claim 8 as
failing to comply with the written description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, we will not
review this issue.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007