Ex parte SHIBLEY et al. - Page 3





                   Appeal No. 1997-2512                                                                                                                             
                   Application No. 08/118,905                                                                                                                       


                   the issues relating to the § 112 rejections are not part of this appeal, and the only issues to                                                  

                   be resolved in this appeal are as follows:                                                                                                       

                            1.        Whether the examiner erred by finally rejecting claims 12 and 13 under 35                                                     

                                      U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Whittaker; and                                                                              
                                                                                                                               3                                    
                            2.        Whether the examiner erred by finally rejecting claims 14 and 15  under                                                       

                                      35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Frenkel in view of Whittaker                                                             

                                      or Cassou.4                                                                                                                   

                            We reverse both the rejections.                                                                                                         

                            In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have reviewed the specification, the                                                        

                   claims, and the applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by the appellants                                                     

                   and the examiner in support of their respective positions.  As a result of this review, we                                                       

                   make the determinations below.                                                                                                                   

                                                                   Claim Interpretation                                                                             



                            3  The statement of rejection on page 3 (2nd full paragraph) of the Examiner’s Answer                                                   
                   indicates that claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  However, it appears that this                                                 
                   statement contains a typographical error, since only claims 14 and 15 are indicated as rejected                                                  
                   under this same ground on page 5 (last paragraph) of the Answer and also on page 5 (paragraph                                                    
                   32) of the final Office action.                                                                                                                  

                            4  The statement of rejection on page 3 (2nd full paragraph) of the Answer fails to mention                                             
                   Cassou as one of the references relied upon to establish obviousness.  However, the Examiner’s                                                   
                   Answer at page 2 lists Cassou as one of the references relied upon to reject the claims on appeal.                                               
                   In addition, the statement of rejection on page 5 (paragraph 32) of the final Office action expressly                                            
                   includes Cassou as one of the references relied upon to support the examiner’s conclusion of                                                     
                   obviousness.  Therefore, it appears that the examiner’s omission of Cassou from the statement of                                                 
                   rejection in the Answer was inadvertent.  Accordingly, we will consider Cassou in this instance to                                               
                   avoid the possibility of piecemeal appeal and to ensure administrative efficiency.                                                               



                                                                                 3                                                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007