Appeal No. 1997-2193
Application 07/986,648
the rejection of claims 1 through 6, 9 through 14 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; maintained the rejection of
all the claims as "based on an improper Markush"; maintained
the rejection of claim 17 as a "substantial duplicate of claim
1"; and, restated his previously stated position that "[t]he
unknown substitutents on the piperazine of claim 3 are not
presented."
In his Answer (Paper Number 22), the examiner has stated
under the heading "Grounds of rejection" that the rejections
before us are the rejections of claims 1 through 14 as they
are founded on the examiner's stated objection to the
specification. Nevertheless, under heading "Response to
argument", the examiner repeats his previously stated
rejection of claim 6 as drawn to an "improper Markush" and
restates his previously stated rejections of claims 17 ("body
of liquid") and 3 ("substituted piperazine ring").
To appellants' credit, notwithstanding the confused
prosecution of this application and the examiner's poorly
organized Answer, it appears appellants have addressed all the
examiner's rejections and underlying reasons for the
rejections as set forth in paper numbers 15, 17, 19 and 22.
OPINION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007