Appeal No. 98-2141
Application No. 08/427,653
Claim 1 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jones in view of Kato.
Before addressing the merits of the rejection, we note
that on page 7 of the brief appellant contends that, because
the final rejection was premature, claim 1 should be
considered in the form in which appellant proposed to amend it
in the Response to Final Office Action filed on May 27, 1997.
However, the examiner refused entry of this amendment in the
Advisory Action mailed on June 25, 1997 (Paper No. 20), and
these issues are not within our jurisdiction to consider. See
MPEP § 706.07(c) and Ex parte Jackson, 1926 C.D. 102, 104
(Comr. 1924) (premature final rejection) and In re Mindick,
371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967) (refusal to
enter amendment after final rejection).
Turning to the question of obviousness under § 103, we
have fully considered the record in light of the arguments
presented in appellant’s brief and reply brief, and in the
examiner’s answer. As a result, we conclude that claim 1 in
unpatentable over the combination of references applied.
With regard to Jones, appellant submitted a declaration
by him to the effect that at the time of the filing date of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007