Appeal 2007-0102
Application 10/338,988
and a radiator sheet 22 (Fig. 1). The radiator sheet comprises projections 8
for the purpose of attaching the lamella element to the radiator sheet wherein
the projections have a first length along an edge of the radiator sheet and a
second length in a vertical direction, and wherein the first length is
approximately equal to the length of the lamella element (Fig. 2a). Each of
the projections comprises a notch 9 along an edge of the respective
projection for facilitating the bending process (Fig. 2a). Representative
claims 1, 3, and 16 are reproduced below:1
1. A radiator element for use in an air heating device, comprising:
at least one lamella element; and
a radiator sheet,
wherein said radiator sheet comprises projections on at least
two of its edges for the purpose of attaching said lamella element to said
1 Certain of the dependent claims on appeal, including separately argued
claim 3, inappropriately depend from a cancelled claim. The Examiner’s
Answer includes an attached “Examiner’s Amendment” which attempts to
correct this informality by amending the dependency of the aforementioned
claims. For example, claim 3 has been “amended” so that it depends from
independent claim 1 rather than cancelled claim 2. In his Reply Brief, the
Appellant states that he “agrees with the Examiner’s Amendment” (Reply
Br. 2). Therefore, in our disposition of this appeal, we will treat claim 3 as
though it depends from claim 1. However, the Examiner appears to have no
authority for making the earlier noted “Examiner’s Amendment.” See The
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1302.04 et seq. (8th ed.,
Rev. 5, August 2006). For this reason, the Appellant should consider filing
an amendment to correct inappropriate claim dependencies in any further
prosecution that may occur.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013