Appeal No. 2000-1794
Application 08/901,171
response solicitive portion of said message–- would overcome
this problem.
Independent claim 11 is similarly unclear as to the
relationship between the “single message” and the subsequently
recited message/message portion limitations. Moreover, these
subsequently recited message/message portion limitations are
inconsistent in and of themselves. For example, the terms
“said first portion” and “said written intellectually response
solicitive message” lack a proper antecedent basis.
Finally, claim 13 is unclear in that the preambular
recitation of “The elongated tape of Claim 11" and the
recitation of “said messages” lack a proper antecedent basis.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 13
is reversed; and a new rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 13
is entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007