Appeal No. 98-2810
Application 08/471,457
as set forth in claim 19.”
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which appellant regards as the invention.
More specifically, the examiner notes that in dependent claims 13 and 14, lines 1-2, the terminology
“with hazel solution” should be ---witch hazel solution--- to clarify the language of the claims.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7 through 11, 13 through 15, 18 through 20 and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because in the examiner’s view “the claimed invention is not supported by a specific
asserted utility” (answer, page 5).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed December 1, 1997) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 17, filed October 17, 1997)
and reply brief/corrected reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed February 6, 1998) for appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007