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