Appeal 2007-1647
Application 10/631,841
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
failing to comply with the written description requirement.1
Claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of AAPA in view of Rapp.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-42 as failing to
comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Specifically, the Examiner concludes that the following claim
language is unsupported by the original Specification, filed July 31, 2003
(Answer 4 and 8):
1 We note that the Examiner also objected, under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a), to the
amendments filed on Jan. 14, 2005 and June 9, 2005 because the
amendments allegedly introduce new matter into the disclosure (Answer 3).
Appellant asks us to review the Examiner’s objection to the amendment (Br.
12-14). However, this is a petitionable, rather than appealable, matter, and
we express no opinion as to its propriety. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.181.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013