Appeal No. 2000-1559 Page 11
Application No. 07/911,593
full and reasoned explanation of its decision.) Under these circumstances, we believe
that the rejection is not now susceptible to meaningful appellate review. On return of
this application to the Examining Corps, we recommend that the examiner re-evaulate
the patentability of claims 5, 6, 8 through 13, 15 through 21, and 29 through 31 over
Welter. If, on re-evaluation, the examiner adheres to the view that those claims are
anticipated by the Welter reference, we recommend a detailed, claim-by-claim analysis.
We vacate the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8 through 13, 15 through 21, and 29
through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Welter.
Conclusion
In conclusion, for the reasons set forth in the body of this opinion, we reverse the
rejection of claims 5, 6, 8 through 13, 15 through 21, and 29 through 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Zygraich. We also reverse the rejection of claims 5,
6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, 24, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Ijaz. However, we affirm the rejection of claims 5 through 7, 12, 13, and 19 through 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ward.
The rejection of all the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), to the extent
predicated on Zygraich and Ijaz, further taken in view of Estes, is reversed. The
rejection of all the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), to the extent predicated
on Zygraich and Ijaz, further taken in view of Smith, is vacated. Likewise, the rejection
of claims 5, 6, 8 through 13, 15 through 21, and 29 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Welter is vacated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007