Appeal No. 2005-0988
Application 09/878,592
made changes to the claims that overcame a rejection of claims 3
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, set forth on
page 2 of the final rejection. See the advisory action mailed
August 29, 2003. The second amendment directed cancellation of
claims 9, 10, 18 and 19, and added new claims 21 and 22, which
appellant characterizes as being re-presented dependent claims 10
and 19, respectively, in independent form. In the advisory
action mailed October 9, 2003, the examiner approved entry of the
second amendment after final and noted that claim 21 is rejected
for the same reasons applied to claim 10, while claim 22 is
rejected for the same reasons as claim 19. As a result of entry
of this amendment claims 9, 10, 18 and 19 have been canceled and
the appeal as to those claims is dismissed.
In the brief filed February 17, 2004, although appellant
notes on page 2 that the appeal involves claims 3-8, 11-17 and
20-22, we observe, as the examiner has on page 2 of the answer
mailed May 3, 2004, that appellant did not contest the rejection
of claims 3 through 8 and 12 through 17. Instead, appellant
indicates on page 4 of the brief that the only issue for
consideration on appeal is “[w]hether claims 11, 20, 21 and 22
are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No.
6,047,963 to Pierce et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,186,894
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007