Appeal No. 1998-0244
Application No. 08/531,890
1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 492-93 (CCPA 1973). For the reasons
discussed above in connection with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection, claims 2 through 4 do not accurately
define the invention disclosed in the underlying specification
considered as a whole. 1
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 through 4
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth in view of
Szycher, Sablotsky, Morgan and Blackford is reversed; and new
rejections of claims 2 through 4 are entered pursuant to 37
CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) provides that, “A new rejection shall not be
considered final for purposes of judicial review.”
1Although the appellants have amended page 3 in the
specification to include language corresponding to the
problematic language in claims 2 and 3, this amendment clearly
conflicts with the detailed description of the inventive
process set forth on pages 8 through 11 in the specification.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007