Appeal No. 1999-2103
Application No. 08/734,205
(1) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Studer.4
(2) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Studer in view of Zaleski.
(3) Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baylo in view of Lorme.
(4) Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baylo in view of Castioni.
(5) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baylo in view of Lorme, as applied
above to claim 18, and further in view of Zaleski.
(6) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baylo in view of Castioni, as applied
above to claim 18, and further in view of Zaleski.
4Notwithstanding appellants' contention in the brief (page 7) and reply
brief (page 3) that rejections (1) and (2) are based on the French Studer
reference, the examiner's answer (pages 3-4) clearly states that the
rejections are based upon the Swiss Studer reference (77922). As there is no
indication that appellants timely filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.181
alleging that the examiner's answer contained an impermissible new ground of
rejection (37 CFR § 1.193(a)(2)), the right to make such allegation has been
waived (MPEP § 1208.01). In any event, appellants concede, and the attached
translation of the Swiss Studer reference confirms, that the disclosures of
the French and Swiss references are the same (with the exception of the
claims). Accordingly, in reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
treated all arguments made by appellants with regard to the French Studer
reference as applying equally to the Swiss Studer reference. Thus, appellants
do not appear to be prejudiced by this treatment.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007