Appeal No. 1998-2643
Application 08/549,349
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Lantz, II (Lantz) 5,258,334 Nov. 2, 1993
Haluska 5,290,354 Mar. 1, 1994
This merits panel relies upon the following reference,
previously made of record, as support for a new ground of
rejection pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b):
Duncan et al. (Duncan) 3,170,813 Feb. 23,
1965 Claims 33-35 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112 as “the term ‘selected’ is vague and indefinite.” Answer,
page 4. Claims 32, 33, 40 and 41 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Haluska (Answer, page 4).
Claims 34-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Haluska in view of Lantz (Answer, page 5).
We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections. Furthermore, we
words “one coating composition is selected from” have been
deleted from the claim (see the amendment dated June 13, 1997,
Paper No. 9). Furthermore, claim 38 as written in this
application (id.) contains “wherein” and “35” interposed while
claim 39 requires a “, and” after “teflon” in line 3 of the
claim. See the specification, page 8, ll. 1-2. Upon the
return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner, these matters should be corrected.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007