Appeal No. 1998-1824
Application No. 08/463,383
not teach and would not have suggested a method for
manufacturing a neck flange, as now claimed. Thus,
notwithstanding our appreciation that the molding procedure of
the Linne document is reasonably pertinent and has some
relevance to the claimed method, the rejection of appellants’
method claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the
Linne reference is not well founded.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application for review of the following
matters:
1. The examiner should ascertain whether the recitation of
“polymers” on line 2 of dependent claim 17 raises an issue of
indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, since
only “a polymer” is recited on line 3 of parent claim 16.
2. The examiner should consider whether the collective
teachings of the Bales and Linne patents would have been
suggestive of the subject matter of method claim 16 under 35
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007