Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 2-8, 17-23, 31-44, 99-112, and 121-134
Procedural background
In a Restriction Requirement (Paper No. 5) entered
November 9, 1993, the Examiner stated (Paper No. 5, p. 2):
1. This application contains claims directed to the
following patentably distinct species of the claimed
invention:
- Species 1, shown in figure 4.
- Species 2, figure's [sic] 7-8.
- Species 3, figure 11.
- Species 4, figure 12.
- Species 5, figure's [sic] 13A-13B.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. § 121 to
elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the
merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no
generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
Currently, no claim is considered generic.
In a Response (Paper No. 6) entered December 9, 1993,
Appellant elected species 1, shown in figure 4, and stated:
"Claims that are thought to relate to the figure are
claims 1-47 and 97-140."
The Examiner entered a first Office Action (Paper
No. 7) on February 1, 1994, holding, without explanation,
that claims 2-10, 14-23, 26-47, 98-116 and 119-140 are not
readable on the elected species of figure 4 and are
withdrawn claims from consideration (Paper No. 7, p. 1).
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007