Ex parte WIDLUND et al. - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 1999-2678                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/704,705                                                                                                                                            


                                Claims 24 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                                                   
                     103(a) as being unpatentable over Barrochelo in view of                                                                                                           
                     Huffman.                                                                                                                                                          
                                Claims 12 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                                                   
                     103(a) as being unpatentable over Barrochelo in view of                                                                                                           
                     Foreman, Williams and Huffman.                                                                                                                                    
                                Reference is made to the appellants’ main and reply                                                                                                    
                     briefs (Paper Nos. 13 and 15) and to the examiner’s final                                                                                                         
                     rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 9 and 14) for the respective                                                                                                     
                     positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to                                                                                                       
                     the merits of these rejections.2                                                                                                                                  
                                On pages 3 through 5 in the main brief and page 1 in the                                                                                               
                     reply brief, the appellants raise and argue the propriety of                                                                                                      
                     the 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph, objection to the                                                                                                            
                     specification which was set forth in the final rejection.                                                                                                         
                     This objection, however, is not directly connected with the                                                                                                       
                     merits of issues involving a rejection of claims.  It is                                                                                                          
                     therefore reviewable by petition to the Commissioner rather                                                                                                       

                                2 The viewpoint expressed in the examiner’s answer that                                                                                                
                     certain arguments advanced in the appellants’ main brief are                                                                                                      
                     untimely because they were not previously presented has no                                                                                                        
                     basis in PTO practice.                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007