Ex parte SWEENIE et al. - Page 2




                Appeal No. 1998-2436                                                                               
                Application 08/550,667                                                                             



                longitudinal axis running from a first tip to a second                                             
                tip and a medially located lateral axis, said filament                                             
                having a thickness which tapers from said lateral axis                                             
                substantially symmetrically and smoothly about the                                                 
                longitudinal axis towards each tip.                                                                
                       The following references are relied upon by the                                             
                examiner:                                                                                          
                Geerts (EPA)                      0 417 832           Mar. 20, 1991                                
                Hisaaki et al. (Hisaaki)*                                                                          
                (Japanese)                        62-243820                  Oct. 24, 1987                         
                *We use the English translation, translated by Schreiber Translation, Inc. (this                   
                is the same translation used by both appellants and the examiner).                                 
                       Claims 1-10 stand rejected (and the specification                                           
                stands objected to) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                                                   
                paragraph, as the specification, as originally filed,                                              
                fails to provide support for the invention as now                                                  
                claimed.                                                                                           
                       Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                                           
                first paragraph, regarding enablement.                                                             
                       Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                                           
                first paragraph, regarding best mode.                                                              
                       Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                          
                being unpatentable over Hisaaki.                                                                   
                       Claims 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                         
                being unpatentable over Hisaaki in view of Geerts.                                                 

                I. The Rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                                             
                       first paragraph, as the specification, as originally                                        
                       filed, fails to provide support for the invention as                                        
                       now claimed                                                                                 

                                                         2                                                         



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007