Appeal No. 2001-1372 Page 2
Application No. 08/018,841
amendments filed subsequent to the final rejection (Paper Nos. 19 and 23) have not
been entered.1
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to projectiles comprising shape memory alloys.
A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art reference in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Davis, Jr. (Davis) 4,704,968 Nov. 10, 1987
The following rejections are before us for review.2
Claims 30, 31, 33, 34, 37-39, 46-53 and 55-58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard as their invention.
Claims 15-19, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37-39 and 51-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Davis.
1 Issue A in the appeal brief is directed to the propriety of the examiner’s refusal to enter the
amendments after final. That issue is reviewable by petition under 37 CFR § 1.181 and is not within the
jurisdiction of the Board. In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). In this
regard, we note that appellants’ petitions (Paper Nos. 21 and 26½) from the non-entry of these
amendments have been denied in decisions mailed July 20, 1996 (Paper No. 22) and November 25, 1996
(unnumbered).
2 The examiner has withdrawn the new matter objection, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 55-58 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 and the rejection
of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (answer, page 2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007