Appeal No. 1996-2598
Application No. 08/220,212
Appellants rely on the following reference supplied with their reply brief:
H. Ramsey Fowler et al. (Fowler), THE LITTLE, BROWN HANDBOOK 202-203 (5th ed.,
1992).
ISSUES2
Claims 5 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Blanco.
Claims 5-10 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cox taken with
Blanco, Lee and Cassiday. Claims 5-10 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
based on new matter and because the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of
the claimed invention. We reverse all three rejections.3
In reaching our decision in this appeal we have given careful consideration to the appellants’
specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 9, mailed
June 1, 1995) and to the examiner’s supplemental answer (Paper No. 13, mailed
2 According to the examiner, upon reconsideration the final rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite is withdrawn (answer, page 2). Moreover, in that the final rejection of claims 5-10
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not repeated in the answer, it is presumed to have been withdrawn.
Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
3 This is a new ground of rejection entered by the examiner in her answer (page 6).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007