Appeal No. 2004-1021
Application No. 09/707,450
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails to
comply with the enablement requirement.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 20 through 23 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wycech in
view of Wieting.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wycech in view of Wieting and Bolduc.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 25) and answer
(Paper No. 26) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 24
Claim 24 depends indirectly from claim 3 and recites a
heating step that “expands said suspension component and shrinks
1 In the final rejection, claim 26 also stood rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wycech in view of
Wieting. The examiner has since withdrawn this rejection (see
page 2 in the answer).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007