Appeal No. 2003-1513
Application No. 09/326,412
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Baker 5,104,409 Apr. 14, 1992
Boyd 5,146,933 Sep. 15, 1992
Claim 22 on appeal stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶1, “as containing subject matter which was not described in the
specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time
the application was filed, had possession of the claimed
invention.” (Examiner’s answer mailed Jan. 24, 2003, paper 29,
page 3; Aug. 19, 2002 Office action, page 3.) Separately,
claims 19, 20, and 22 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Boyd in view of Baker. (Id. at
pages 4-5.)
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. We
affirm, however, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
reasons well stated in the examiner’s answer.3
Claim Interpretation
Prior to discussing the merits of the examiner’s
rejections, we must ascertain the meaning of the limitation
3 The appellants state: “Claims 19, 20 and 22 may be
grouped together for purposes of a the [sic] rejection under 35
USC 103.” (Supplemental appeal brief, p. 2.) We therefore
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007