Appeal No. 2000-2267
Application No. 08/764,576
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on an inadequate disclosure.1 Claims
1-5 and 7-10 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers the combination of
Eckert, Seewaldt, Lunzer, Gschwender, and Horn with respect to
claims 1, 2, 8, and 9. Gardner is added to the basic combination
with respect to claims 3, 4, 7, and 10, and Cowan is added to
Gardner and the basic combination with respect to claim 5.2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 16) and
Answer (Paper No. 17) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Initially we note that Appellants have provided arguments as
to the sufficiency of the drawings. However, the issue of the
sufficiency of the drawings relates to a petitionable matter and
not to an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201 (8th Ed., Aug. 2001).
1 At page 8 of the Answer, the Examiner objects to the specification as
containing new matter relative to Appellants’ amendment specifying that the
air source for air turbine 17 is compressed air. Since the issue of the
particular air source for the air turbine does not directly or indirectly
affect the appealed claims, such issue is not reviewable on appeal.
2 The Mohan, Mommsen, D’Amato, and Reeves references, which are not
applied in any prior art rejections, are cited as evidentiary documents to
support the Examiner’s position as to the sufficiency of Appellants’
disclosure.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007