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 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007