Appeal 2006-2158
Application 09/853,391
the Answer are different from those set forth in the Final Office Action, and
the rejections of the Answer have not been addressed by Appellants.
Therefore, the issues are not sufficiently crystallized to allow review. For
this and other reasons, we remand this application to the jurisdiction of the
Examiner for further action. Further explanation is provided below.
The Final Office Action lists the following rejections:
1. Claim 102 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2;
2. Claim 102 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
3. Claims 1, 2, 14-29, 45-85, and 102 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Ishida or Chuang in view of Sweet’n Low
(tradename) and Kishimoto;
4. Claims 30-44 and 93-98 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ishida or Chuang in view of Sweet’n Low (tradename) and
Kishimoto and Valentine, Menzi as applied to claims 1-85 and
102 above, and further in view of Kampanga.
After the Final Office Action, the Examiner withdrew the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 112, ¶ 2 (Answer § 3). The Answer advances
the following rejections for review on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 102 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ishida or Chuang in view of Sweet’n Low (trademark)(patent
3,625,711) to Eisenstadt and Kishimoto;
2. Claims 3-7 and 13 as rejected over the combined references as
applied to claims 1, 2, and 102 above, and further in view of
Valentine.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013