Appeal No. 1997-3636
Application No. 08/584,642
The appealed claims are drawn to a method of fabricating
a synthetically engineered material, and are reproduced in the
appendix of appellant's brief.
The reference applied in the final rejection is:
Takagi et al. (Takagi) 4,354,909 Oct. 19,
1982
Claims 1 to 21 stand finally rejected as anticipated by
Takagi, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), or alternatively, as
unpatentable over Takagi under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
(...continued)1
no drawings showing a filing date of January 11, 1996 are
present in the official file and the file wrapper label
indicates that "0" sheets of drawings were filed with the
application. On May 22, 2000, applicant submitted, by
facsimile transmission, six (6) sheets of drawings containing
Figures 1-6D. However, the drawings were not accompanied by
evidence, e.g., a properly itemized postcard receipt, showing
the original application papers were received in the Office
accompanied by six (6) sheets of drawings. Appellant is
reminded that any assertion that drawings were in fact
deposited in the Office on January 11, 1996, is by way of
petition accompanied by the appropriate petition fee. Upon
return of the application to the jurisdiction of the examiner
and absent a grantable petition, an amendment of the
specification should be required by the examiner canceling all
references to the omitted drawings. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP), § 601.01(g) (7th ed. 2000, Rev.
1).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007