Appeal No. 1997-2193
Application 07/986,648
"duplicate of claim 1."
In the final rejection (Paper Number 17), the examiner:
specifically withdrew the prior art rejections; withdrew the
rejection of claims 1 through 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, to the extent the rejection was based on the
claim language "linking group" and "aryl"; maintained "the
rejection of claims 1-6 (in part), 9, 10-14 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, ... for the reasons cited";
appears to have maintained the rejection of the claims as
including an improper Markush group; maintained the rejection
of claim 17; and, appears to have stated a new reason (lack of
antecedent basis for "substituted piperazine ring") for
finding claim 3 is unpatentable.
In his advisory action (Paper Number 19), the examiner,
after acknowledging appellants' response to the final
rejection: explained that the rejection of claims 1 through 14
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, "of paper #15,
mailed on 02/16/95 is maintained, for the reasons cited
therein; except for issues 1), 3), 7) on pages 2, 3 and 4" and
further explained that "[s]imilar rejection under the same
statute is also maintained for issues (A), (B), (C), (D), (E)
and (F) on pages 10 and 11 of the same paper #15"; maintained
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007