Appeal No. 2000-0449
Application No. 08/636,614
The claims on appeal are drawn to a device for applying
thermal therapy to the perineal area of a patient. They are
purportedly reproduced in Appendix I of appellant’s brief, but
the copy of claim 16 does not include the additions made
thereto by the amendment filed on May 27, 1997 (Paper No. 5).
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Caillouette et al. 3,175,558 Mar. 30,
1965
(Caillouette)
Stanley, Jr. 3,763,622 Oct. 9, 1973
(Stanley)
Gossett 3,950,158 Apr. 13, 1976
Angelillo et al. 5,178,139 Jan. 12, 1993
(Angelillo)
The appealed claims stand finally rejected on the
following grounds:1
(1) Claim 1, unpatentable for failure to comply with the
"written description" requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.2
1An additional rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is not repeated in the Examiner’s Answer and
presumably has been withdrawn in light of the amendment filed
on March 19, 1999 (Paper No. 22)
2Since claims 2 and 4 to 9 are directly or indirectly
dependent on claim 1, it is not apparent how this rejection
could be applicable only to claim 1 and not to the claims
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007