Appeal No. 2001-1273 Page 2
Application No. 09/171,334
DISCUSSION
We believe the examiner rejected claims 1 through 8, 13, 16 through 19, 21, 26,
33 through 35, 37 through 45 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite in the Examiner's Answer. We say "believe" because in setting forth the
rejection on pages 3 -4 of the Examiner's Answer, the examiner does not state either the
claims which are rejected or the statutory basis of the rejection. However, from reading
the seven reasons posited by the examiner in the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of the
Answer in light of the final rejection (Paper No. 13, May 26, 2000), it is our
understanding that the examiner intends all the pending claims to be rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner has set forth seven reasons why he considers the claims to be
indefinite in the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of the Examiner's Answer as follows:
1) In claim 1 and all occurrences, "each total mole" is not understood and
"less than x moles of azine compounds" does not refer to any
concentration
2) Claim 6 and all occurrences appears to be contradictory where in the last
line, "per mole of total azine in said solution" regarding the relative
concentrations vs. amounts and what would be included under total azine.
3) In claim 7 line 1, "aminoaryl" lacks antecedent basis.
4) In claim 8 and all occurrences, "said azine compound having a hydrogen
atom" is not understood regarding what azines do and do not have a
hydrogen atom and what the significance of that would be.
5) In claim 13 lines 8-9 and all occurrences, "capable of reacting" is indefinite
regarding what actually occurs.
6) In claim 37 and all occurrences, "poisoning azine compounds" is not
understood in context and what is poisoned by what may be intended to
be set forth.
7) In claim 49 and all occurrences, "capable of reacting with oxidized
peroxidase" is unclear as to what reacts with what and under what
conditions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007