Appeal No. 2003-0677 Page 3
Application No. 09/759,950
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 5, mailed March 10, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed
October 9, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed September 12, 2002) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Initially, we must determine if the rejection of claims 1 and 3 to 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, made in the final rejection is before us in this appeal. The
facts are as follows:
1. The final rejection included a rejection of claims 1 and 3 to 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
2. Following the final rejection, the appellant submitted a response under 37 CFR
§ 1.116 (Paper No. 6, filed July 10, 2002) in which the appellant proposed amendments
to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and also to
distinguish over the applied prior art.
3. In the Advisory Action (Paper No. 7, mailed July 25, 2002) responding to Paper
No. 6, the examiner informed the appellant that the proposed amendments would not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007