Appeal No. 1996-2801
Application 08/134,361
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the
answer for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above-noted rejections.
We cannot sustain any of the rejections advanced by
the examiner in this appeal.
On page 6 of the brief, the appellants have
responded to the examiner's aforequoted criticism under the
second paragraph of § 112 concerning "how "substantially free"
. . . is within the scope of the weight ratio . . . of not
more than 0.10." This response, in our view, fully and
satisfactorily resolves the § 112, second paragraph, criticism
raised by the examiner. Although the examiner has clearly
maintained the rejection under consideration (e.g., see the
last paragraph on page 10 of the answer), she has given
utterly no reason for being unpersuaded by the appellants'
earlier-mentioned arguments on page 6 of the brief.
Under these circumstances, it is apparent that we
cannot sustain the examiner's § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 7 and 19 through 21.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007