Appeal No. 1998-2791 Page 4
Application No. 08/422,676
March 25, 1996 (Paper No. 15), final rejection (Paper No. 18)
and answer (Paper No. 23) for the respective positions of the2
appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of this
rejection.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we shall not
sustain the examiner's rejection.
Whyte discloses self-inflating structures comprising
plural compartments which are "individually inflated at the
point of use at the time of need as a dependent function of
being used" (column 1, lines 21-24). More particularly, Whyte
discloses absorbent structures, such as absorbent bed pads and
2In lieu of repeating the explanation of the rejection, the answer on
page 3 states “[s]ee page 2, lines 1-4 of the FINAL rejection, Paper No. 18.”
The final rejection, however, similarly refers to "page 3, line 11 - page 6,
line 12 of the last Office action, Paper No. 15." Such a procedure by the
examiner is inappropriate. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1208 (6th ed., Revision 3, Jul. 1997), as written at the time the answer was
mailed, expressly provided that incorporation by reference may be made only to
a single other action. That provision remains unchanged in the current MPEP
§ 1208 (7th ed., Jul. 1998).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007