Appeal No. 1997-1109
Application No. 08/250,223
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claim 25 is
sustained.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, pages 1-3) that the claims
on appeal should be allowed because the Office allowed similar
claims in Colson’s U.S. patent 5,520,450. The PTO is not
bound to repeat an error that may have been made in issuing
the noted patent to Colson. See Ex parte Tayama, 24 USPQ2d
1614, 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 22, 24, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The decision of the
examiner rejecting claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)is
reversed. The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3-
6, 8, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed because of our finding
that these claims are indefinite.
As a result of the indefiniteness of claims 1, 3-6, 8,
and 26, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997,
by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10,
1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct.
21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, ĦA new ground
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007