Appeal No. 1997-1190
Application No. 08/427,972
(2) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bseisu.3
(3) claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 14 and 16 through 29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bseisu in view of Jeter in combination with Chevalier; and
(4) claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bseisu in view of Engebretson.4
The full text of the examiner's rejections and the
responses to the arguments presented by appellants appear in
the supplemental answer (Paper No. 37), while the complete
statement of appellants’ arguments can be found in the main
brief, reply brief, and supplemental reply brief (Paper Nos.
32, 34 and 38, respectively).
OPINION
3Claims 2 and 10 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bseisu in the final rejection. We do not understand why the
examiner has not identified this rejection of claims 2 and 10 as a new ground.
4In the final rejection, claims 28-30, now renumbered claims 27-29,
were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Renumbered claims
27 through 29 have been amended subsequent to the final rejection (see Paper
No. 30, filed October 21, 1996). Since no mention of the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection has been made by the examiner in the supplemental
answer, we presume that the examiner has withdrawn the final rejection of
claims 27-29 on this ground. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007