Appeal 2007-0686
Reexamination Control 90/004,812
Application 09/810,650
First, our decision has been based on the merits of claims 8-11,
although it is consistent with In re Wako Pure Chemical Industries Ltd.
(non-precedential opinion 00-1139 issued February 1, 2001 by the Court of
Appeals of the Federal Circuit). Second, the Examiner maintains that claims
8-11 have been examined on their own merits (Answer 12). Third, based on
the record before us, the Examiner has provided Appellants with clear notice
of the reasons underlying her unpatentability rejections of claims 8-11 under
§§ 102(e) and/or 103 over Pawlowski. Moreover, Appellants have not only
had the opportunity to address these rejections on their merits, but also have
done so in a substantive manner. Therefore, no violation of due process is
seen on the record before us.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 8-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Pawlowski and to reject
claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pawlowski.
“Not time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).”
AFFIRMED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013