Appeal No. 2002-0405
Application No. 07/325,269
4. 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
As stated above, we have interpreted claims 3 and 19 as
limited to superconductors prepared by a sol-gel process. See,
supra, note 11. If, during further prosecution, appellants do
not amend the claims to limit the scope to superconductors made
by the sol-gel method, then the examiner should consider the
propriety of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971)(Once it is determined that the subject matter defined by
the claims is particular and definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the analysis turns to whether the scope of
protection sought is supported by the disclosure under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.)
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, "[a] new
ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of
judicial review."
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007