Appeal No. 1999-0739
Application 08/747,663
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed March 27, 1998) and the
examiner's
answer (Paper No. 9, mailed October 16, 1998) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s
brief (Paper No. 8, filed August 21, 1998) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
and rejections were not repeated in the examiner’s answer.
Normally, rejections of claims which are not repeated in the
examiner’s answer are considered to have been withdrawn by the
examiner. See, for example, Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180 (Bd.
App. 1957). In the present case, we note that appellant’s
grouping of the claims as set forth on page 3 of the brief in
no way relieves the examiner of the obligation to expressly
state in the examiner’s answer exactly what rejections are
before the Board for review.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007