Appeal No. 1998-2134
Application No. 08/585,217
Morton, Rubber Technology, Third Ed., published by Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, (1987), pp. 464-481.
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows :4
1) Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention;
2) Claims 1 through 9, 11 through 13 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of DuPont, Hsieh and Wright; and
3) Claims 1 through 9, 11 through 13, 16 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Garmong, Hsieh and Wright.
As a preliminary matter, we observe that appellant takes
the position that the objection to the specification set forth
by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 132 is erroneous. See
Brief, pages 7 and 8. As correctly stated by the examiner (
Answer, page 2), this argument is not appropriate in the
present case since appellant’s remedy regarding the objection
to the specification at issue is through a petition to the
4Subsequent to the final Office action dated Feb. 5, 1997 (Paper No.
9), the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking an enabling disclosure for the
subject matter claimed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007