Appeal No. 1999-1162
Application No. 08/427,837
App. & Int. 1999). Thus, we leave it to the examiner in the first instance to determine if a
rejection of claims 19 and 20 over the combination of Ray and Wathen is
appropriate. Should the examiner determine that the claims are unpatentable, the
examiner should issue an appropriate communication explaining in detail the basis of such
a rejection and provide appellants with an opportunity to respond.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. The rejections of
claims 9, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph are
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
DOUGLAS W. ROBINSON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007