Appeal No. 1998-2941 Page 32
Application No. 08/061,985
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,682
The appellants have not specifically contested this
rejection in the brief or reply brief. In fact, the
appellants state (brief, p. 172) that they will take
appropriate action to delete claims to overcome the pending
provisional "same invention" double patenting rejection.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 3-
17, 18/4, 18/8, 18/12, 18/16, 19/4, 19/8, 19/12, 19/16, 28-35,
and 46/28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection (10)
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 20-27 and
46/20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is based upon the reasons set forth in the
objection to the specification. In the objection to the
specification, the examiner determined (final rejection, pp.
4-5) that
[t]he specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as the disclosure is enabling only for
product claims limited to a liquid whole egg product
which has been aseptically packaged to achieve a shelf
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007