Appeal No. 2005-2755 3
Application No. 09/612,403
noted that the form has now been corrected. While the
declaration form used by appellant does appear to be
misleading, neither the examiner nor this panel has the
authority to waive the explicit requirements of the
regulation in this regard. The rejection based on an
improper reissue oath to the extent it is based on foreign
priority is affirmed.
Turning to the issue of lack of specific detail as to
at least one error in appellant’s reissue oath, here again
the policy of the USPTO requiring the enumeration of a
specific error has been upheld by our reviewing court.
Appellant’s declaration does not include the specific
identification of at least one error. Accordingly
appellant’s declaration is not in compliance with 37 CFR
§ 1.175 and thus is properly rejected under 35 USC § 251.
The rejection based on improper reissue oath as it pertains
to stating at least one error being relied upon as a basis
for reissue is also affirmed.
Turning to the rejections on obviousness grounds, it
is our finding that Iwai discloses an outboard engine of
the two-stroke type with a cylinder block 12, a cylinder
head 24, a crankcase chamber 39, a crankshaft 22, and
pistons 15, 16. In a two stroke engine, oil is typically
added to the fuel for lubrication purposes, so Iwai is also
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007