Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
paragraph, rejection in paragraph 8, since paragraph 6 has
nothing to do with claims 208 and 209.
We find nothing inherently wrong with inconsistent
grounds of rejection. Sometimes a claim may be considered
indefinite and yet the examiner does his or her best job to
address the patentability issues based on an assumed
meaning. This saves time for both the examiner and the
applicant. The real issue is the propriety of the
obviousness rejection.
Appellant provides no argument why claim 208 would not
have been obvious for the reasons stated by the Examiner.
The argument that the claims should be allowed for the same
reasons stated for claim 206, depends on claim 206 for
patentability. Because Appellant has not pointed to any
error in the rejection, the rejection of claims 208 and 209
is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 24-30, 45-47,
97, 98, 113-120, 135-140, and 206-211
Eleventh issue - claims 1, 24, 97, 117, and 206
The Examiner states (OA6):
- 33 -
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007