Appeal No. 2005-1344 Page 11
Application No. 08/468,610
and take appropriate action. In the event that the examiner believes that a prior
art rejection should be made, the examiner should clearly articulate the prior art
rejection, insuring that all limitations of the rejected claims are accounted for.
In addition, we note that appellants should not be bystanders to the
development of the administrative record. To the contrary, we encourage
appellants to work together with the examiner to insure that their claims
accurately reflect their invention. In this regard, we encourage appellants to take
a step back and review their specification to insure that claims accurately reflect
their invention. In the event that they do not, we encourage appellants to take
appropriate action. Thereafter, we encourage appellants to work together with
the examiner to properly develop the record of this application.
OTHER ISSUES
While we take no action on the merits of this appeal, we make the
following observations in an effort to advance the prosecution of this application.
I. The Brief appears to be inaccurate:
a. Ionic strength:
During the November 15, 2005 Oral Hearing, appellants’ representative
was questioned a number of times as to the intended meaning of the phrase “a
high or a low ionic strength” as it is used in the context of the claimed invention.
See e.g., last line of claim 1. According to appellants’ representative, the phrase
should be construed to read “a high and low ionic strength.” See Brief, page 6,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007