Appeal No. 1998-2273
Application 08/504,679
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Other issues
Further prosecution of the appealed claims before the examiner should include
consideration of the following issues.
The appealed claims should be reviewed for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, because it reasonably appears that at least several claims are indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention. For example, claims 3 and 4 merely recite “a particular temperature” without
specifying any temperature and the specification does not provide a specific definition of the
term. Similarly, for example, the terms “static extraction” and “dynamic extraction” in claim 6
are not defined in such a generic manner in the written description in the specification (e.g.,
pages 18-20) or appear to have a common meaning in the art.
Claims 8 and 19 appear to be duplicates. In the event that these claims are held to be
allowable, see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 706.03(K) Duplicate Claims (8th ed.,
Rev. 1, Feb. 2000; 700-34).
Finally, the appealed claims should be compared with claims 1 through 15 of United
States Patent 5,435,941, issued July 25, 1995 from parent application 08/349,966, with respect to
whether issues of double patenting arise.
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
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007