unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Guaraldi in view of
Harenza and Tittgemeyer; and (3) claims 9-11 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Guaraldi in view of
Harenza and Machguth, and
(B) remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with the views expressed in its opinion.
Apparently, in response to the Board’s decision, the
Examiner mailed a communication to Applicants. (Paper 19).
The communication appears to "supplement" the Examiner’s
Answer regarding the Examiner's now vacated rejection of (1)
claims 1, 2 and 16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Guaraldi in view of Harenza; (2) claims 7 and 8 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Guaraldi in view of
Harenza and Tittgemeyer; and (3) claims 9-11 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Guaraldi in view of
Harenza and Machguth. However, in the communication,
claims 1, 2, 7, 8-11 and 16 are not again rejected.
Furthermore, Applicants were not given a time period to
respond to the Examiner's "supplemental" views in the
communication. Instead, the application has been returned to
the Board. The Examiner apparently assumes that an appeal is
still pending before the Board.
B. Opinion
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007