Appeal No. 2000-0753
Application 08/909,545
specific reference to the prior art (Br10), the examiner briefly
treats the dependent claims in the examiner's answer (EA7-8).
This constitutes a new ground of rejection and appellant could
have petitioned to have the rejection so labeled and prosecution
reopened. Since we reverse the rejection of the independent
claims, it is not necessary to address the dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-17 are reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ))))) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007