Appeal No. 97-0939
Application 08/127,319
The following rejections are before us for review:2
(a) claims 1-7 and 20-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a
specification, as originally filed, that “does not provide support for the invention as is now claimed”
(answer, page 11);
(b) claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, “as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which [appellant] regards as the invention”
(answer, page 12);
(c) claims 1-7 and 20-29, “provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/602,913” (answer, pages 12-13); and,
(d) claims 20 and 27, “provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same
invention as that of claim 18 of copending application Serial No. 602913” (answer, page 14).
(e) claims 1-3, 6, 7, 20, 21 and 24-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bonutti in view of Moll;
(f) claims 4, 5, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti in view of
Moll and further in view of Pena;
(g) claims 20, 21, 24, 25, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
2Rejections (b)-(d) and (g) are new rejections made for the first time in the examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007