Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 3
Application No. 08/336,402
specification. Claim 6 stands 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
applicants regard as invention. Claims 1-4 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Pall. Claims
1-6 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pall.2 Claims 7-20, 24 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pall.
Rather than reiterating the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer and to
appellants’ briefs for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
We shall sustain the examiner’s § 112, first paragraph
rejection of claim 25, the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims
2 The examiner does not list claim 23 as a rejected claim in the § 103
rejections set forth in the answer. However, claim 23 was included via an
apparent handwritten interlineation in the first of the two separately stated
§ 103 rejections over Pall set forth in the final rejection (page 5). Since
the examiner (answer, page 3, item No. 6) has indicated that appellants’
statement of the issues set forth in the brief is correct and appellants list
claim 23 as one of the appealed claims standing rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Pall in item No. 5 of the Issues section of the
brief and argue the rejection as to that claim (brief, page 25, line 4), we
consider the examiner’s failure to list claim 23 in the § 103 rejections set
forth in the answer as an inadvertent oversight. Accordingly, like appellants
and the examiner, we consider the § 103 rejection of claim 23 over Pall as set
forth in the final rejection to be maintained by the examiner and an issue
presented for our review on this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007