Appeal No. 2004-1822
Application No. 09/550,863
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Hendershot 4,903,323 Feb. 20, 1990
Larkin 5,687,213 Nov. 11, 1997
Sears 5,696,813 Dec. 9, 1997
DeJaco et al. (DeJaco) 5,784,406 July 21, 1998
Fujiwara 5,790,657 Aug. 4, 1998
Snapp 5,875,398 Feb. 23, 1999
Hardy et al. (Hardy) 6,108,404 Aug. 22, 2000
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants filed an
appeal brief on June 26, 2003 (Paper No. 9). In response
thereto, the examiner reopened prosecution in the office action
mailed August 5, 2003 (Paper No. 10). In response thereto,
appellants filed the supplemental appeal brief on November 10,
2003 (Paper No. 11). We use the supplemental appeal brief of
Paper No. 11, as well as the reply brief of Paper No. 13 in
making our determinations herein. We further note that in the
examiner’s answer, while the examiner refers to the rejections as
set forth in Paper No. 4, we believe the examiner’s intent was to
refer to Paper No. 10. We also note that on page 3 of the
answer, the examiner lists the grounds of rejections, and does
not include the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection. However, the examiner
argues this rejection on pages 3-5 of the answer, and we include
the 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph rejection among the issues
in this appeal.
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
paragraph (indefiniteness).
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
being unpatentable over DeJaco in view of Fujiwara, Hardy,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007