Appeal No. 2002-0938 Page 2
Application No. 08/958,182
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Gold 3,865,271 Feb. 11, 1975
Peters 5,753,246 May 19, 1998
(filed Dec. 2, 1996)
Claims 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gold.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gold in view of Peters.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the non-final
action mailed June 6, 2000, the final rejection and the answer1 (Paper Nos. 18, 20 and
27) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief
(Paper No. 26) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections.
1 The answer (page 3) incorporates the final rejection, which in turn incorporates the prior action
mailed June 6, 2000. Such a procedure is not in compliance with the Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1208, which expressly provides that incorporation by reference may be made only to
a single other action.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007