Appeal No. 1998-2673
Application 08/557,138
indicated that claims “19-37" had been rejected, in truth the
examiner had only rejected
claims 19, 21 and 30 through 33. Review of the final Office
action shows that claims 19, 21, 30 and 31 were rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 and claims 30 though 33 were rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In that final Office
action, claims 20, 22 through 29, and 32 through 34 were
indicated as being allowable “if rewritten to include all of
the limitations of claim 19 and any intervening claims,”
claims 32 and 33 additionally requiring amendment to overcome
the rejection under § 112, second paragraph. No mention of
claims 35 through 37 was made in the body of the final Office
action, apart from a complaint concerning erroneous claim
numbering.
In an effort to cure the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the appellants presented an amendment which
would have made claim 30 depend from claim 19 rather than from
canceled claim 1. That amendment was denied entry and no
other correction of the dependency of claim 30 has ever been
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007