Appeal No. 1998-1950
Application No. 08/584,517
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Frey et al. (Frey) 5,253,288 Oct. 12, 1993
Claims 18, 19, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Frey.
Claims 1-17 have been canceled.
Claims 20-25 and 29-33 apparently have been objected to as containing allowable
subject matter, but depending from rejected claims.1
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 14) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 13) and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 15) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
Appellants’ main argument in defense of method claim 18 is set out on pages 11
and 12 of the Brief. Appellants focus on the preferred embodiment disclosed by Frey, and
note the differences with respect to the instant invention. As alleged in the paragraph
1The cover sheet of the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) states that claims “20-25 and 29-33” have
been allowed. The Final Rejection at page 4 states that the claims “would be allowable if rewritten to
overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action....” However, claims 20-25 and
29-33 are all dependent claims, and each depends, directly or indirectly, from rejected base claim 18 or
rejected base claim 26. However, there is no 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Final Rejection. The
Advisory Action (Paper No. 10) states that claims 20-25 and 29-33 are “objected to.”
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007