Appeal No. 98-0588
Application 08/501,293
Tremmel et al. (Tremmel)Patent 4,418,277 Nov. 29, 1983
Shepard et al. (Shepard) Patent 5,130,520July 14, 1992
Tymes Patent 5,157,687 Oct. 20, 1992
Reddersen et al. (Reddersen) Patent 5,347,113 Sep. 13,
1994
The Rejections on Appeal
In the final office action, the examiner finally rejected
claims 21-40 “as set forth previously” and explicitly rejected
claims 21-40 as being unpatentable over Reddersen in view of
Tymes, Tremmel, Moellering and Shepard. (Paper No. 12 at 2).
In the previous office action, the examiner rejected claims
21, 37 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Reddersen, and also rejected claims 22-36, 38 and 39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reddersen in view of
“the prior art of record in the parent”. (Paper No. 7 at 2).
We decline to speculate as to the precise ground of
rejection for claims 22-36, 38 and 39. The case will be
remanded to the examiner for a clearer statement of the
applicable ground of rejection and the reasons therefore,
after we have reviewed the other grounds of rejection on
appeal.
The Invention
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007