Appeal No. 2001-1486
Application No. 09/137,218
appellants and the examiner regarding the merits of these
rejections.1
DISCUSSION
Rejection (a)
Independent claim 135 is directed to a conversion machine
(300) for converting sheet-like stock material into a relatively
low density cushioning dunnage product, a stand (306) supporting
the machine, and a pair of laterally spaced apart feet (308)
removably attached to the stand and located at a lower end of the
stand for holding the machine upright. The feet include laterally
spaced apart supports (316) for supporting the ends of a holder for
a roll of stock material (683). In addition, the feet extend
beyond the vertical footprint of the machine. The arrangement is
such that the stand and the machine are readily removable and
1
1The statement of the rejection on page 3 of the answer
merely states that the rejections on appeal “[are] set forth in
prior Office action[s], Paper Nos. 16 and 20.” Paper No. 20, the
final rejection, in turn states that several of the rejections
set forth therein are “as discussed in . . . the last office
action [i.e., Paper No. 16].” This practice is improper. The
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208 (8th ed., Aug.
2001) expressly provides that incorporation by reference in an
examiner’s answer may be made only to a single other action. In
the interest of judicial economy, we shall, in this instance,
proceed to decide the appeal on the merits notwithstanding the
examiner’s failure to follow established office procedure in
formulating the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007