Appeal No. 2001-0421
Application 08/926,835
BRADLEY R. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I dissent from the action taken by the majority on this
appeal whereby the examiner’s prior art rejections have been
vacated and a new rejection under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 has been made.
These actions are wholly inappropriate for a variety of
reasons. First, the majority’s section 112 position is without
merit. Second, even assuming the majority’s section 112 concerns
are valid, the circumstances of this case are such that the
examiner’s prior art rejections should be reviewed on the merits.
Third, the actions of the majority on this appeal militate
against the missions and goals of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office by exacerbating the pendency problems which are so widely
recognized as plaguing this agency and its customers. These
several reasons are expounded upon more fully below.
THE MAJORITY’S SECTION 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH,
REJECTION IS WITHOUT MERIT
The rejection is not supported by cited authority
Concerning their new rejection under the second paragraph of
section 112, the majority panel members state “[c]laims 1-37 are
indefinite in that, while purporting to be drawn to processes,
they fail to set forth any discernable method steps.” Slip Op.,
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007