Appeal No. 96-1480
Application No. 08/179,779
previously’ since no specific rejection relative to these
claims has ever been made of record by the Examiner with
respect to any prior art ‘as set forth previously’.” In a
summation of the status of the claims, appellant also states
(Brief, page 3) that “[t]he very general rejection set forth
with respect to Claims 6 through 28 both in the Office Action
of July 1, 1994, and February 1, 1995, does not meet the
burden the CAFC has placed upon the Patent Office in order to
state a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.”
In view of the amendments made to claims 6 through 22,
and the newly added claims 23 through 28, we must agree with
appellant that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness. As indicated supra, the claims on appeal
are not the claims that were presented in the parent
application. It follows, therefore, that the claims on appeal
can not be rejected “as set forth previously” (final
rejection, page 2) because the claims on appeal are not “the
same as previously adjudicated by the Appellant Forum [sic,
Board] in paper no. 22" (Answer, page 2). If the claims on
appeal are rejected “as set forth previously,” then does the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007