Appeal No. 2004-0184
Application No. 09/837,824
inert and biodegradable is self-contradictory and inconsistent
with the underlying specification.
In claims 5, 6 and 8, the term “said elliptical interior
cavity” lacks a proper antecedent basis. This terminology also
is inconsonant with the recitation in parent claim 1 that the
interior cavity is defined by surfaces which are merely
“substantially elliptical.”
In the same vein, the recitation in claim 10 that the body
includes a “second ellipse” is inconsonant with the subsequent
recitation in the claim that this “ellipse” is created by
surfaces which are merely “substantially elliptical.”
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 3
and 5 through 10 is reversed; and new rejections of these claims
are entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule
notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off.
Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR §
1.196(b) provides that, “A new ground of rejection shall not be
considered final for purposes of judicial review.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007