Appeal No. 98-1310
Application 08/368,685
unpatentable over Burk in view of Adamczyk.5
Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Burk in view of Laprade.
The rejections are explained on pages 2 and 3 of the
final rejection. The arguments of the appellant and examiner
in support of their respective positions may be found on pages
10-16 of the brief and page 4 of the answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and by the examiner in
the answer. As a consequence of this review, we will sustain
the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Claim 17 was not included in this rejection in the final rejection;5
however, it is apparent from the examiner's position that claim 17 was
intended to be rejected on this ground. Accordingly, we conclude that the
examiner's failure to include claim 17 was an inadvertent omission. The
appellant is not prejudiced by this interpretation since, from the statement
of issues on page 8 of the brief, it is clear the appellant recognized that
the examiner intended claim 17 should be included.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007