Appeal 2007-1443
Application 09/813,636
1 PRIOR ART
2 The prior art reference of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
3 appealed claims is:
4 Morgan US 5,799,286 Aug. 25, 19984
5
6 REJECTIONS1
7 Claims 1-12 and 19-222 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
8 non-statutory subject matter.
9 Claims 1-12 and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
10 not enabling one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed subject
11 matter from the original disclosure.
12 Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
13 Morgan.
14 Claims 1-12 and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
15 Morgan.
1 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1-12 and 19-24 under U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Calver (Answer
2).
2 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Answer implies that claims 23 and
24 also are within the scope of this rejection (Answer 3) by including claims “22-
24” in the nominal rejection. However, claims 23 and 24 were not included
previously (Final Rejection 2; Br. 5 and 9) and the Examiner indicates that the
grounds in the Brief are correct except for withdrawn rejections (Answer 2). The
Examiner does not refer to claims 23 or 24 in the analysis of the rejection in the
Answer. Accordingly, we treat the inclusion of claims 23 and 24 in the nominal
rejection within the Answer as a typographical error and that these claims are not
before us in this rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013