Appeal No. 2000-0289 Page 5
Application No. 08/753,542
We sustain the rejection of claims 9 to 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
In the final rejection (p. 1) and the answer (pp. 4-5),
the examiner set forth his rationale as to why claims 9 to 16
were indefinite.
The appellants have not specifically contested this
rejection in the brief. The only argument raised in the brief
(p. 10) concerning this rejection relates to the examiner's
refusal to entry the appellants' amendment after final (Paper
No. 11). The examiner's refusal to enter that amendment
relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable
matter. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§
1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we will not review that issue.
Since that appellants have not pointed out any error in the
examiner's rejection of claims 9 to 16 as being indefinite, we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 9 to 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The anticipation issue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007