Appeal No. 2003-0598
Application 09/172,830
Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over either Donnadieu or Gladek in view of
Bourque and Salzman.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 32 and 36) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 35) for the respective positions of the appellant and
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. Petitionable matter
On pages 5 and 6 in the main brief, the appellant raises as
an issue in the appeal the 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) objection to the
specification set forth in the final rejection. As this matter
is not directly connected with the merits of a claim rejection,
it is reviewable by petition to the Director rather than by
appeal to this Board (see In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403-
1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971), and hence will not be
further addressed in this decision.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The examiner considers independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 to be indefinite due to confusion as to
1 The final rejection (Paper No. 29) contained additional rejections
which have since been withdrawn by the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007