Ex parte MARUI - Page 3





                     Appeal No. 1997-3340                                                                                                              Page 3                          
                     Application No. 08/323,500                                                                                                                                        



                                The following rejections are before us for review.                                                                                                     
                     1.         Claims 1, 3-9, 14-17, 20, 21, 23-28, 32 and 34-37  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.4                                                                            

                     § 112, first paragraph, as, according to the examiner, the specification, as originally filed, does                                                               

                     not provide support for the invention as is now claimed.5                                                                                                         
                     2.         Claims 1, 3-9, 14-17, 20, 21, 23-28, 32 and 34-37  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.6                                                                            

                     § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly                                                                 

                     claim the subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.                                                                                            

                     3.         Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14-17, 20-28, 32, 34-38 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                    

                     § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ogino.                                                                                                                           

                     4.         Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-17, 20-28, 32, 34-38 and 40 stand rejected under 35                                                                   

                     U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino.                                                                                                                    

                                Reference is made to the main and reply briefs (Papers No. 29 and 31) and the answer                                                                   

                     (Paper No. 30) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the                                                                  

                     merits of these rejections.                                                                                                                                       


                                4The examiner's inclusion of claims 38 and 40 in the statement of this rejection appears to have been an                                               
                     inadvertent error as these claims do not contain the limitations that the examiner urges are not supported by                                                     
                     appellant's specification and as independent claim 22, from which they depend, has not been included in this                                                      
                     rejection.                                                                                                                                                        
                                5While the adequacy of the originally filed disclosure, including the drawings, in providing support for the                                           
                     claimed subject matter as required by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is an appealable matter, the examiner                                                
                     is correct that the issue of whether the drawings comply with 37 CFR § 1.83 is a petitionable matter and not an                                                   
                     appealable matter.  See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201.                                                                             
                                6The examiner's inclusion of claims 38 and 40 in this rejection appears to have been an inadvertent error                                              
                     as these claims do not contain the limitations which the examiner considers to be misdescriptive or imprecise.                                                    








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007