Appeal No. 1997-0998
Application 08/251,494
§ 103 as unpatentable over Franz in view of Mercer and Gerber
(Answer, page 3). We reverse this rejection for reasons3
which follow.
OPINION
The method of claim 1 on appeal recites “introducing and
mixing a sealant into a liquid prior to said liquid exiting a
nozzle as a focused, high energy liquid jet” and “sealing an
edge of a kerf ... with said sealant ... to encapsulate dust
and short length fibers formed by said cutting of said fibrous
work piece.”
The examiner states that “Franz discloses a high energy
liquid jet cutting device wherein the liquid jet is water
combined with a long chain polymer such as methyl cellulose
which is widely used as an adhesive.” (Answer, page 3).
3 The rejected claims are incorrectly listed on page 3 of the Answer as claims
1-6 and 11-15. Since the examiner lists the correct claims on page 2 of the Answer and
appellant has responded to the rejection including the correct claims (except that claim
23 has been renumbered as claim 22, see the Brief, page 3), we hold this error to be
harmless. Therefore we consider claims 1-5, 9, 13-15 and 22 as the claims on appeal and
included in the sole rejection. We must also note the examiner’s statement on page 2 of
the Answer that “appellant has failed to include as an issue the outstanding double
patenting rejection.” On the record before us, we find no double patenting rejection
has ever been made in this application. Upon return of this application to the
jurisdiction of the examiner, this matter should be clarified on the record.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007