Appeal No. 1997-3609
Application No. 08/483,349
whether the claims reasonably exclude additional ingredients
such as the amines required by Dormish.
It is important that the examiner recognize that our
reversal of the rejection before us in this appeal does not
preclude the examiner from exploring these newly raised issues
and, if appropriate, making another rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of
Dormish. Manifestly, these new issues present a different
case of patentability than was before us in this appeal. For
instance, the issue of whether it would have been obvious to
eliminate the amines from the adhesive disclosed in Dormish
becomes irrelevant.
Thus, after interpreting the claims in view of the
discussion above, should the examiner conclude that a
reasonable basis exists for rejecting the claims, the examiner
should issue an Office action setting forth the basis of the
rejection and give appellants an opportunity to respond
thereto.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007