Appeal No. 1998-1315
Application No. 08/334,751
relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was
filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to
the examiner (first supplemental answer, Paper No. 19, pg. 2),
“[t]he original disclosure of the parent does not support the
recitation
of ‘an exclusively dry multi-stage filtering means’ as found
in the instant case.”
Claims 1, 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over McGoff in view of Brookman2.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
statement with regard to the above noted rejections and
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 10, mailed June 10, 1996), the answer
(Paper No. 17, mailed April 15, 1997), the first supplemental
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed September 2, 1997) and the second
2 Issues 2 and 4 through 6 stated on page 8 of the answer
have been withdrawn on page 3 of the first supplemental
answer. Therefore, only issues 1 and 3 are remaining for
consideration by this board.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007