Ex Parte JULIEN - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2001-1553                                                                Page 4                
             Application No. 09/224,757                                                                                


                           not more than a reasonable number of species before taking                                  
                           further action in the application.                                                          
                    Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.146, in an action mailed October 15, 1997 (Paper No. 2                      
             in parent Application No. 08/753,182), the examiner pointed out that the parent                           
             application contained claims directed to several patentably distinct species of the                       
             claimed invention and stated the following:                                                               
                                  Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. § 121 to elect a                               
                           single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to                                   
                           which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is                                 
                           finally held to be allowable.                                                               
                                  Applicant is advised that a response to this                                         
                           requirement must include an identification of the                                           
                           species that is elected consonant with this requirement,                                    
                           and a listing of all claims readable thereon, including                                     
                           any claims subsequently added.  An argument that a                                          
                           claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered                             
                           nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.                                            
                                  Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will                                
                           be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species                                
                           which are written in dependent form or otherwise include all                                
                           the limitations of an allowed generic claim as provided by 37                               
                           CFR § 1.141.  If claims are added after the election,                                       
                           applicant must indicate which are readable upon the elected                                 
                           species.  MPEP § 809.02(a).                                                                 
                                  Should applicant traverse on the ground that the                                     
                           species are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit                                
                           evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing                                    
                           the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the                                  
                           record that this is the case.  In either instance, if the                                   
                           examiner finds one of the inventions patentable over the                                    
                           prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a                                       
                           rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.                                    
                    In response to the above-mentioned Office action, appellant elected one of the                     
             enumerated species, identified the claims which read on the elected species, and                          






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007