Appeal No. 2001-2305
Application 08/669,674
Our review also shows (1) that the explanations of the 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection in the final rejection
(Paper No. 25) and examiner’s answer (Paper No. 31) do not
address with any reasonable specificity the limitations recited
in the claim, and (2) that the appellants’ briefs, perhaps
understandably, do not contain any reasonably specific argument
of this rejection. As a result, the issues pertaining to the
rejection have not been developed to the extent necessary for a
reasoned consideration on appeal. In the event the appeal is
eventually perfected from a procedural standpoint, the examiner
is further directed to take appropriate action to rectify this
deficiency.
Additionally, the nature of the examiner’s remarks in the
answer explaining the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections and the copy of the “claim involved in
[the] appeal” in the appendix section of the appellants’ brief
causes us to question whether the examiner and/or the appellants
are focusing on the version of claim 1 officially entered into
the record, i.e., claim 1 as submitted on December 22, 1997 in
Paper No. 5.2 The examiner is directed to take appropriate
2 Contrary to the assertion on page 3 thereof, the
examiner’s answer does not include an appendix showing “claim 1
correctly written.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007