Appeal No. 2000-0639 Page 5
Application No. 08/537,560
examiner, the reactants and products recited in claim 1 are not “commensurate in
scope” (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, line 8).
On this record, we do not find an adequate rebuttal or response by appellants to
these matters of internal inconsistency in claim 1 which have been raised by the
examiner. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed. For the purposes of this appeal, appellants have not argued
dependent claims 2 through 4 separately from independent claim 1. (Appeal Brief,
section VI Grouping of Claims). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 2 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is also affirmed.
In conclusion, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We do not, however, sustain the rejection of claims 5
through 17 and 20. The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ELD
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007