Appeal No. 96-2821
Application 08/015,007
2. Applicants also argue that the examiner deprived them
of due process when he changed the grounds of the rejection in
his answer because he relies on only one reference in making the
rejection. (Paper 25 at 1-2.) First, Applicants asked us to
review the decision in the final Office action (Paper 22), which
relies on all four of the cited references (Paper 16 at 2).
Second, the answer expressly contains no new ground of rejection.
(Paper 24 at 3.) While the answer's statement of the final
rejection lacks a reference to three of the references (Paper 24
at 3), the remainder of answer relies on all four cited
references. (See e.g., Paper 24 at 2, item (7) (listing all four
references as "prior art of record relied upon in the rejection
of claims [sic] under appeal") and at 4-5 (citing Mahulikar,
Iversen, and Matsumoto).) Thus, Applicants could not reasonably
have been led astray by the apparent misstatement in the answer.
Indeed, in the same reply, Applicants complain that the examiner
is improperly applying the other references. (Paper 25 at 3-5.)
We conclude, therefore, that any error resulting from the
misstatement of the final rejection was harmless.
B. Claim 5 is not obvious on the present record
3. The thickness of the adhesive is a contested
limitation. The references on which the section 103 rejection is
based do not teach or suggest the claimed thickness range for a
- x -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007