Appeal No. 95-2233
Application 07/978,014
follows:
(1) Claims 2 through 6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 USC
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite; and
(2) Claims 2 through 6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 USC
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Feyen,
Narayanan, and Morner.
The only reasonable interpretation which these facts permit
is that the examiner dropped all rejections set forth in the
Final Rejection except the rejections specifically referred to in
the Examiner’s Answer. See Paperless Accounting, Inc. V. Bay
Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 663, 231 USPQ 649, 651-
52 (Fed. Cir. 1986); § 707.07(e) of the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (6th Edition, Rev. 2, July 1996).
Applicants state that the issue presented for review is
whether the examiner correctly rejected claims 2 and 4 under 35
USC § 102(b) as described by Japanese Patent 3007202 or Morner.
See the Brief before the Board, page 3, section entitled “The
Issue Presented for Review”. How the case could be briefed in
this way escapes us. Again, see the Final Rejection mailed
February 1, 1994 (Paper No. 4), setting forth two non-prior art
rejections and three prior art rejections. In any event, based
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007