Appeal No. 1997-0221
Application 08/248,496
confusing as to whether an additional mineral supplement is
recited or the mineral supplement of claim 1 is being further
limited. The dependency of claim 4 is also improper since5
the amount of sodium chloride and monosodium phosphate in
claim 4 does not further limit the ranges specified for these
ingredients in independent claim 1. Furthermore, if claims 4
and 7 are drafted as separate embodiments of the invention
(see the specification, pages 9-10), the claims should specify
the essential amounts of sodium bicarbonate or
sesquicarbonate.
This application is remanded to the examiner for
appropriate action as noted above.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
The term “further comprising” was deleted from claim 7 in the amendment dated5
Jan. 16, 1996, Paper No. 9, in response to the rejection under § 112, ¶2, in paragraph 8
of the final rejection (Paper No. 8). No corresponding amendment was made to claim 4.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007