Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
The following rejections are before us for review:
a) claim 35, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a disclosure that does not comply
with the enablement requirement found in that paragraph;3
b) claim 36, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph, “as being of improper dependent form for failing to
further limit the subject matter of a previous claim” (final
rejection , page 2);4
c) claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 16-18, 20, 23 and 30, rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being anticipated by Coffey;
d) claims 4, 12, 14, 19, 24, 32 and 33, rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Coffey;
3 This is the only rejection of independent claim 35,
notwithstanding that claim 36, which now depends from claim
35, continues to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see
rejection (f) infra).
4 All reference to “final rejection” in this opinion
denote the final rejection mailed January 23, 1996 (Paper No.
14).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007