Appeal No. 2001-0476
Application No. 08/768,231
the meaning of Moon's track identification and apply Moon's
teaching accordingly to the present claims.
Whether Moon's teachings meet the limitations of Appellant's
claims is for the Examiner to determine based on the analysis
stated above and in conforming with Patent Office policy seen in
MPEP § 706.02.
As stated supra, we are even further confused as to how the
Examiner applies the art rejection with respect to claims 13, 21
and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. More specifically, the Examiner
fails to specifically address and determine the scope of these
claims. Rather, the Examiner provides a laundry list of
components disclosed by Blagaila and Cowen.
See page 4, lines 1-3 of the Answer. Without analyzing the
claims, how can the Examiner make a one-to-one correspondence of
what the art teaches to what the Appellant claims? It is clear
from the Answer that the Examiner did not. Therefore, we will
not speculate on the Examiner's "intended art rejection" but will
remand the case to the Examiner for a more complete application
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007