Appeal No. 2001-2288
Application 09/175,570
“adjacent” in a broad sense, they do not form a “continuous
linear array” due to the relatively large spacing
therebetween. Hence, even if modified in view of McQueen in
the manner proposed by the examiner, Snider would still lack
response to the claim limitation argued by the appellant.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 6 and
9, as being unpatentable over Snider in view of McQueen.
As Ollier does not cure the foregoing deficiencies of the
Snider-McQueen combination relative to parent claim 1, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 11 as being unpatentable over Snider in view
of McQueen and Ollier.
III. New ground of rejection
The following rejection is entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Appealed claims 1, 2, 6, 9 and 11 and allowed claim 10
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007