Appeal No. 2002-1006
Application 09/132,351
Opinion
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the
Appellant and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through
8, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first will address the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102. At the outset, we note that Appellant states on
page 4 of the brief that claims 2 through 10, 13 and 14 stand or
fall together with claim 1. We note that Appellant has only
argued claim 1. See pages 4 through 7 of the brief and the reply
brief. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) (July 1, 2000) as amended at 62
Fed. Reg. 53169 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling at the
time of Appellant’s filing the brief, states:
2(...continued)
with Appellant’s representatives. The interview summary states
that a supplemental answer is attached to the interview summary,
which includes Huotari and Alanara references under the heading
of Prior Art of Record, in paragraph 9. The interview summary
states that these references were inadvertently left out in the
previous Examiner’s answer mailed August 13, 2001. We note that
the record also shows the supplemental Examiner’s answer entered
into the record and mailed on June 19, 2002. We will simply
refer to the supplemental Examiner’s answer as the answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007