Appeal No. 2000-1325
Application No. 08/842,758
Opinion
A final rejection shall repeat or state all grounds of
rejection considered applicable to the claims in the application,
clearly stating the reasons in support thereof. 37 CFR
§ 1.113(b). Whereas an examiner’s answer may, as here,
incorporate the statement of the grounds of rejection by
reference to the final rejection, (MPEP § 1208, page 1200-17,
paragraph A), we have considered examiner’s position on appeal to
be 1.) the ground of rejection, and reasons in support thereof,
set forth in the final rejection and 2.) item (11) at page 3 of
the answer.
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
the rejection should not be sustained.
In the answer at page 3, item (11), the examiner states as
follows:
Most arguments presented by appellant have been
responded to in the Final Rejection of the claims dated
March 25, 1999. The additional arguments, pertaining to
statements that the rejection is misapplied because the
rejection of record refers to a “method” and not an
apparatus, is not found persuasive. The method and apparatus
clearly correspond to each other, no distinction is made in
the rejection for separate inventions.
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007