Appeal No. 1999-1756
Application No. 08/499,100
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Herrick in view of Beeman.
Claims 2-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being2
unpatentable over Herrick in view of Beeman, as applied above
to claims 1 and 2, and further in view of Bachovchin.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Herrick in view of Beeman and Bachovchin,
and further in view of Silverwater.
Reference is made to the brief, first reply brief and
second reply brief (Paper Nos. 16, 20 and 22) and the final
rejection, answer, first supplemental answer and second
supplemental answer (Paper Nos. 9, 19, 21 and 24) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.3
OPINION
2While the examiner has applied this rejection against claims 2-5, it
appears that the inclusion of claim 2 in this rejection was inadvertent.
3We recognize that 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1), as amended effective Dec. 1,
1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct. 10, 1997), does
not permit a supplemental examiner's answer unless the application has been
remanded for such purpose by the Board. However, as appellants have not
objected to the examiner's issuance of two supplemental answers and as
appellants have filed two reply briefs, in the interest of fairness, we have
considered all of the supplemental answers and reply briefs.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007