Appeal No. 95-3405
Application 08/077,505
Christopher et al. (Christopher) GB 2 220 286 Jan. 04, 1990
(British Patent)
The Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-12 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Steeves.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-12 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Nelson and Christopher
et al. (Answer at 3). In the discussion of this rejection, the
examiner did not refer to any combination of teachings from
Nelson and Christopher but applied, instead, Nelson and
Christopher individually, which is correct because in an
anticipation rejection all of the claimed elements must be found
within a single reference. It appears that a mistake was made
only in the identification of the rejection.
Accordingly, we will treat the anticipation rejection based
on Nelson and Christopher as if it were based on Nelson or
Christopher, in the alternative.
When a rejection is based on either reference A or reference
B, it is improper to identify the rejection as being based on "A
and B." Such a mistake tends to confuse both the appellants and
the Board and should not be repeated in the future.
3. Claims 1, 3, and 5-12 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steeves, Nelson, and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007