Appeal No. 97-2504
Application 08/200,707
that all the rejections under Section 112 had been overcome. The
Board would ordinarily have the authority to either dismiss the
appeal with respect to the claims not argued or to sustain the
rejection for lack of a persuasive response. In our view, each
of these actions would be unnecessarily punitive under the facts
of this case, and particularly when the merits of the Section 112
rejection are considered. Therefore, on this record we will
consider the merits of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Thus, claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention as noted in the examiner’s answer.
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence
of obviousness the examiner offers Cocco in view of Sugaya with
respect to claim 1, Kogo taken alone with respect to claim 3, and
Sugaya taken alone with respect to both claims.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007