Appeal No. 2006-0911 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/248,595
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (mailed April 2, 2004) and answer (mailed January 25, 2005) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief1 (filed
November 10, 2004) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the examiner
expresses two concerns. The first is that appellants have failed to disclose the
particular tanning process which was used to produce the increased water resistance
properties for the full range of weight ratios which is critical or essential to the practice of
the invention (answer, page 4). The second concern is that, according to the examiner,
the application as filed does not provide support for a game ball without a bladder. In
the final rejection, the examiner concluded that the first problem resulted in non-
compliance with the written description requirement while the second resulted in non-
1 The drawing objection issue raised by appellants on page 7 of the brief is not within the
jurisdiction of the Board, being reviewable by petition to under 37 CFR § 1.181. In re Mindick, 371 F.2d
892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007