Appeal No. 97-3671
Application 08/266,977
Opinion
We reverse.
A reversal of the examiner’s rejection should not be
construed as an affirmative indication that the subject matter
claimed is patentable over prior art, even over the prior art
references cited by the examiner. We focus only on the
statements, positions, and rationales presented by the
examiner and do not undertake to examine the claims ab initio.
A. Findings of Fact
1. The rejection of claims 8-15 as was stated on page 2
of the final Office action (Paper No. 8) was not stated in the
examiner’s answer as a ground of rejection.
2. The examiner’s answer does not clearly state any
ground of rejection except to note that the following four
references have been relied on: Milnes, Langhans, Clark, and
Pfost.
3. The final Office action (Paper No. 8) states on page
2 thereof that claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the prior art as set forth
previously and further in view of Beck and Langhans.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007