Appeall No. 1998-1398 Page 6
Application No. 08/400,637
second revised appeal brief, (Paper No. 48), and the second
answer, (Paper No. 46), for the respective details thereof.2
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections made by the
examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and
evidence of the appellants and examiner. After considering
the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 27-36 as lacking a written description and in
rejecting claims 27-30 as non-enabled and lacking utility. We
are also persuaded that he
did not err, however, in rejecting claims 31-36 as anticipated
by Gillig ‘230, Gillig ‘042, Gillig ‘558, Gillig ‘674, or
Gillig ‘560.
2Although the appellants also argue, “[t]he examiner
erred in objecting to the drawings under 37 CRF [sic]
1.83(a)[,]” (Appeal Br. at 6), such an issue is to be settled
by petition to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office rather than by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403,
169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007