Appeal No. 1999-2777
Application No. 08/985,835
that which appellant regards as the invention.1
Claims 5, 7, 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Block.
Claims 8, 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Block.
Claims 6, 9, 10, 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Haq in view of Block.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
1While the § 112, second paragraph, rejection was not
expressly repeated in the examiner's answer, it is apparent
from appellant's brief (Paper No. 15, pages 5 and 6-8) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, page 2, item (6)) and the
first paragraph of the answer under the heading "Response to
Argument" (page 3) that this was merely an oversight and that
the rejection is maintained by the examiner and contested by
appellant. Thus, we will consider the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, in this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007