Appeal No. 97-2168
Application No. 08/382,120
In fact, literal support for the phrase can be found in
the specification at p. 4, lines 29-30. The problem with
this phrase is not a matter of written descriptive
support, therefore, but rather one of “distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards
as his invention", 35 U.S.C. § 112. We will address that
below. The rejection under § 112, first paragraph is
reversed.
New Ground of Rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we make
the following new grounds of rejection.
Claims 10, 12, 21 and 33 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. As
we see it, claim 33 is incomplete. The examiner
originally rejected the claims under § 112, second
paragraph, on the grounds that “heteroaryl” was self-
contradictory (first Office action, mailed November 9,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007