Appeal No. 2003-0242 Page 3
Application No. 09/484,604
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 9, mailed May 21, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 8, filed March 26, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 10, filed July 29, 2002) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Initially we note that the restriction issue raised by the appellant on pages 3, 9
and 10 of the brief relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly,
we will not further review this issue.
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. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007