Appeal No. 2002-1822
Application No. 09/197,164
Claims 16 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kanjo in view of Narkon.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wallace '679 in view Narkon as applied to
claim 1 above, and further in view of Bogue.
Claims 9 and 10 additionally stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Daugherety '819 in view of
Narkon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Yamazumi.1
1 It appears to us that the above-noted rejections based on
Daugherety '819 and Kanjo are merely cumulative and superfluous
since the disclosures of these two patents appear to add nothing
of significance that is not already disclosed in Wallace '679.
The examiner's statement of the differences between the applied
prior art references and the claimed subject matter is
essentially identical in each of the rejections based on Wallace
'697, Daugherety '819 and Kanjo, as is the examiner's statement
regarding the teachings of Narkon and each of the statements
supporting the examiner's conclusion of obviousness. It would
seem the examiner would be well served to review MPEP § 706.02,
wherein it is noted that cumulative rejections like those above
should be avoided.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007