Appeal 2006-2936
Application 10/013,714
(2) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner failed to establish that
Britton anticipates claims 27, 45, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Further,
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the
combination of Briton and Dan renders claim 5 unpatentable under 35 USC
§ 103 (a).
(3) On the record before us, claims 6 through 8, 18, 19, 50, and 51
have not been shown to be unpatentable.
(4) Claims 4, 5, 27, 30, 45, 47, and 48 are not patentable.
DECISION
In light of the foregoing, Appellant’s request is granted and we
modify our previous decision to the following extent:
(1) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6 through 8, 18, 19, 30, 48,
50 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed, and
(2) we reject claims 4, 30 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013