Appeal No. 1999-1155
Application No. 08/241,253
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 12, 18 and 19. Claims 13 through 17 and 20 through 46,
while still pending, have been withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected
subject matter. Claims 1 and 5 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and
are presented in Appendix B of the Examiner’s Answer.2
The examiner relies on the following references:
Tweedle et al. (Tweedle) 4,885,363 Dec. 5, 1989
Parker et al. (Parker) 5,247,075 Sep. 21, 1993
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
In the first action (paper no. 7, December 26, 1995), claims 18 and 19 were
“rejected for lack of unity of invention as being improper Markush claims of independent
inventions;” claims 1 through 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs, as based on a non-enabling disclosure, and as indefinite; and claims 1
through 12, 18 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tweedle and Parker. In the final rejection, the rejection of claims 1 through 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph was withdrawn (paper no. 12, October 17, 1996).
Appellants submitted an amendment and declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 in
response to the final rejection (paper nos. 19 and 17 respectively, both dated April 21,
1997). The examiner withdrew the “Markush rejection” and the rejection under 35
2 The claims presented in Appendix B correctly reflect entry of the amendment
proposed in paper no. 19.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007