Appeal No. 1999-2601
Application 08/862,682
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 2 and 5 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Azari in view of either Goldmann
or Marttila, and further in view of Hilakos, Bates and
Dyksterhouse.
Claims 2, 5, 7 through 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Glemet in view of either
Goldmann or Marttila, and further in view of Hilakos, Bates,
Dyksterhouse and optionally Montsinger.
Claims 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Glemet in view of either Goldmann or
Marttila, and further in view of Hilakos, Bates, Dyksterhouse,
optionally Montsinger, and Azari.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 38 and 40) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 39) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.1
1 The explanation of the first rejection in the answer (see
pages 5 through 11) refers to Glemet even though Glemet is not
included in the statement of the rejection. Where a reference is
relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a minor
capacity, there is no excuse for not positively including the
reference in the statement of the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428
F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970) and MPEP
§ 706.02(j). Accordingly, we have not considered Glemet in
assessing the merits of the first rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007