Appeal No. 1997-0031
Application 07/987,669
the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner
with regard to the merits of these rejections. 3
Before discussing the merits of the rejections, we note
that the appellant appears to have raised as an issue on
appeal the 35 U.S.C. § 132 objection which was set forth in
the final rejection (see page 4 in the main brief). This
objection, however, is not directly connected with the merits
of issues involving a rejection of claims and therefore is
reviewable by petition to the Commissioner rather than by
appeal to this Board. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395,
1403-1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, we
shall not review or further discuss the 35 U.S.C. § 132
objection.
Turning now to the first of the examiner’s rejections,
3Upon reconsideration (see pages 2 and 3 in both the main
and supplemental answers), the examiner has withdrawn (1)
certain portions of the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection set forth in the final rejection, (2) the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, enablement rejection set forth in the
final rejection and restated on pages 5 and 6 in the main
answer, and (3) the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
enablement rejection entered for the first time on pages 7 and
8 in the main answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007