Appeal 97-1804
Application 08/329,042
a. All the claims stand rejected under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 on the ground that the
specification, as filed, does not provide support for language
inserted therein during prosecution. See also 35 U.S.C.
§ 132, last sentence. The inserted language is "continuous,
non-porous."
b. All the claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hens, U.S. Patent
5,332,537 (1994).3
Prosecution history
19. There came a time during the prosecution when
the examiner rejected the claims as being anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Hens.
20. In due course, applicant filed a response
(Amendment A--Paper 13).
21. In Amendment A, applicant inserted the language
"continuous, non-porous" in various places in the
specification and in the claims.
22. For example, the language
Hens is prior art vis-a-vis applicant under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).3
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007