Appeal 2006-2898
Application 10/461,687
the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 43. Since claims 12-16,
36, 41, and 42 encompass the limitations recited in the independent claims,
we determine that the Examiner’s analysis lacking any discussion of such
limitations is incomplete. As such, we remand this application to the
Examiner to provide a complete analysis of the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 12-16, 36, 41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith
and to reconsider the patentability of the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 35, and 43 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Smith.
The application is remanded to the Examiner to provide a complete
analysis of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-16, 36, 41, and 42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith and to reconsider the patentability of
the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013