Appeal No. 2000-1799
Application 09/211,473
with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the form of the
resin Markush groups is improper, i.e., they are of the form
“a, b or c” rather than “a, b and c” (answer, pages 3-4). The
appellants’ arguments regarding the issue of claim clarity
(brief, page 4) do not include an argument that the examiner is
incorrect with respect to the clarity of the Markush groups.
Consequently, we consider the appellants to have acquiesced in
this rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 58 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
AMENDMENT UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(c)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(c) we state that
claim 58 may be allowed if amended to read “and blends of these
resins” rather than “or blends of these resins”.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 2 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Seibold, claims 8 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Seibold, claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Seibold in
view of Honka, and claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Seibold
in view of Honka and Palmer, are reversed. The rejections of
claims 12, 13 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Seibold, claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Seibold in view of Honka, and
claims 58 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007