Appeal No. 97-0840
Application 08/159,405
(Answer, page 2). We reverse this rejection for reasons2
which follow.
OPINION
The examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9 “as being
indefinite and incomplete” states that the “claims are
considered to recite a process by only describing the desired
effect wanted, i.e. using a [sic, an] ink formulated to result
in the greatest possible degree of metamerism between a
reference ink and the formulated ink.” (Answer, page 2). The
examiner further states that there are no parameters of how
the ink is formulated and it would take an “inventive step” to
formulate the ink and determine that the ink has the “greatest
possible degree of metamerism” from the reference ink (Id.).
2The examiner’s Answer does not specify what paragraph of § 112 is relied upon
as the statutory basis for the rejection (see the Answer, page 2). Since no new ground
of rejection has been made in the Answer (Answer, page 2, paragraph (12)) and the final
rejection contains only a rejection of claims 2-9 under
§ 112, paragraph two, we consider the rejection in the Answer as based on paragraph two
of § 112. However, note our discussion of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, infra.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007