Appeal 2007-1723
Application 10/893,962
Boisvert US 6,064,165 May 16, 2000
Whinnery US 6,822,410 B2 Nov. 23, 2004
1. Claims 1 and 5-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Redelberger in view of Barge.
2. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Redelberger in view of Barge and further in view of
Iizawa.2
3. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Redelberger in view of Barge and further in view of Whinnery or
Boisvert.3
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make
2 Although the Examiner did not include this rejection in the Answer, it is
nonetheless under appeal. See Br. 1 (appealing rejection of claims 1-3 and
5-13); see also Answer 3-5 (“Grounds of Rejection” section including only
claims 1 and 5-12). We therefore presume that the Examiner intended to
incorporate by reference the specific grounds of rejection for claims 2 and 3
in Examiner’s Final Rejection mailed Dec. 13, 2005 in the Answer.
We remind the Examiner, however, that under current practice, the Answer
must clearly state all points relied upon in previous Office actions and
should not incorporate previous statements by reference. See MPEP
§ 1207.02 (“An examiner's answer should not refer, either directly or
indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully restating the point relied
on in the answer.”).
3 This rejection, too, is not included in the Answer. As with claims 2 and 3,
we presume the Examiner intended to incorporate the grounds of rejection of
this claim from the Final Rejection in the Answer. See n.2 supra.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013