Appeal No. 2003-0679 Page 3
Application No. 09/730,163
The appellant's admission of prior art (Admitted Prior Art) as set forth in claim 1 which
is drafted as a Jepson1 type claim in which the preamble of the claim is an admission of
prior art. Note, In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Freudendahl.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Freudendahl in view of Carmichael.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
Admitted Prior Art in view of Welsch.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the Admitted Prior Art in view of Welsch as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Allen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
1 Ex parte Jepson, 1917 C.D. 62, 243 O.G. 525 (Ass't Comm'r Pat. 1917), incorporated into the
rules as 37 CFR § 1.75(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007