Ex parte RICH - Page 3





                     Appeal No. 1998-2383                                                                                                              Page 3                          
                     Application No. 08/116,355                                                                                                                                        



                                The following rejections are before us for review.3                                                                                                    

                     1.         Claims 51, 32-34 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable                                                                     

                     over Holappa in view of Chellis, Richardson and Goodman.                                                                                                          

                     2.         Claims 35, 39-42, 46-48, 56 and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                                                                       

                     unpatentable over Holappa in view of Chellis, Tee and Richardson.                                                                                                 

                     3.         Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Holappa in                                                                   

                     view of Chellis and Richardson.                                                                                                                                   

                     4.         Claims 17, 19, 36, 50 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                                                                             

                     unpatentable over Holappa in view of Chellis, Tee, Richardson and the British reference.                                                                          

                     5.         Claims 22, 29 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over                                                                   

                     Holappa in view of Chellis, Tee, Richardson, the British reference and Piccini.4                                                                                  

                     6.         Claims 38 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over                                                                       

                     Holappa in view of Chellis, Tee, Richardson and Piccini.                                                                                                          

                                3As evident from the requests for clarification in the appellant's brief (Paper No. 20), first reply brief                                             
                     (Paper No. 23) and second reply brief (Paper No. 25, page 2), the examiner's Office action (Paper No. 17, mailed                                                  
                     February 11, 1997) and answer (Paper No. 21, mailed December 2, 1997) contain errors in the statements of the                                                     
                     rejections which have been clarified by the examiner's supplemental communication (Paper No. 24, mailed April 29,                                                 
                     1998).  The appellant has not alleged that these clarifications constitute new grounds of rejection.  We have                                                     
                     considered the examiner's supplemental communication mailed after the appellant's first reply brief and the                                                       
                     appellant's second reply brief only to the extent necessary to understand what rejections are before us.  We have not                                             
                     considered any arguments presented in these papers with regard to the merits of these rejections, since 37 CFR                                                   
                     1.193 provides for neither supplemental examiner's answers, except upon remand from the Board of Patent Appeals                                                   
                     and Interferences for such purpose, nor supplemental reply briefs.                                                                                                
                                4It is apparent from the examiner's remarks on page 4 of the answer, read in light of item 2 (apparent                                                 
                     errors in last Office action) on page 10 of the appellant's brief, that the omission of Tee in this rejection was an                                              
                     inadvertent error.  In any event, the appellant is not prejudiced by this interpretation in view of: (1) our treatment of                                         
                     this rejection, infra, and (2) the appellant's assumption (brief, page 10) that Tee is included in the rejection.                                                 








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007