Ex parte GAPCO - Page 7




                     Appeal No. 1999-1480                                                                                                                                              
                     Application No. 08/523,330                                                                                                                                        


                     independent claims 52, 57, and 63 and dependent claim 66.  In                                                                                                     
                     accordance with appellant’s desires, claims 52-56 stand or                                                                                                        
                     fall together, claims 57-62 stand or fall together, and claims                                                                                                    
                     63-65 and 67-70 stand or fall together, and claim 66 stands or                                                                                                    
                     fall on its own.  Note, claim 65 stands or falls with claim                                                                                                       
                     63, because appellant did not argue the claim separately.                                                                                                         


                                In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                                                                                                 
                     careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                                                                                                        
                     claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the1                                                                                                                                                    
                     respective positions articulated by the appellant and the                                                                                                         
                     examiner.                                                                                                                                                         


                                We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of appealed                                                                                                  
                     claim 66 under 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph, which                                                                                                            
                     rejection we understand to be based upon the written                                                                                                              

                                1In regards to claims 55 and 59, line 2, “said handle”                                                                                                 
                     has  no proper antecedent basis.  Upon review of  appellant’s                                                                                                     
                     proposed amendment on page 2 of the appeal brief, appellant                                                                                                       
                     proposed to amend claims 55 and 59, line 2,  by deleting the                                                                                                      
                     word “handle” and substituting --spheroidal body--.  As noted                                                                                                     
                     by the examiner (answer, page 1), this amendment has not been                                                                                                     
                     entered since it was not submitted in a separate paper from                                                                                                       
                     the appeal brief.  See MPEP  1207.                                                                                                                               
                                                                                          7                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007