Appeal No. 2001-1466
Application 09/055,899
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 22 and 24) and to the office actions dated
May 25, 2000 and September 13, 2000 and the examiner’s answer
(Paper Nos. 18, 20 and 23) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 9
Earlier in the prosecution of the application (see Paper
No. 12), the appellant elected the species shown in Figure 3
in response to a restriction requirement (Paper No. 7). In
this species, the product reservoir includes a bellows-type
member 20 which permits the reservoir to be compressed so as
to at least partially compress the applicator and move the
product into contact therewith.
1The references in the examiner’s answer (see page 4) to
multiple prior office actions for an explanation of the
appealed rejections is improper. MPEP § 1208 limits
incorporation by reference in an answer to a single prior
office action.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007