Appeal No. 1998-0273
Application 08/285,892
not merely the “preferred” part thereof. Thus, we agree with the examiner because we determine that
one skilled in the art would not understand what is claimed even in light of the specification.
While we affirm this ground of rejection, we note appellants’ intent to amend the claim (reply
brief, page 3), and thus we are of the view that, under the facts of this case, appellants shall have the
right to amend claim 14. 37 CFR § 1.196(c) (1997).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended
under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007