Appeal No. 2000-2134
Application No. 08/868,663
With respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 21
through 29 based upon the teachings of the Golden patent,
appellant argues (request, page 5) that the final rejection
(paper number 10) only listed claims 21, 27 and 29 as being
rejected based upon the teachings of this reference. The
examiner subsequently included claims 22 through 26 and 28 in
this rejection based upon admissions by appellant that claims
21 through 29 were copied from Golden (answer, page 11). In view
of the lack of surprise to appellant based upon the examiner’s
action, and appellant’s reaffirmation of the act of copying
claims 21 through 29 from Golden (reply brief, page 3), we hereby
decline to change our decision to affirm the anticipation
rejection of claims 21 through 29 based upon the teachings of
Golden.
Appellant’s arguments (request, page 6) concerning the
shortcomings in the teachings of Dudek, Albrow and Barnes in the
anticipation rejections of claims 21, 27 and 29 are untimely, and
should have been presented in the briefs.
Appellant’s request has been granted to the extent that our
decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with
respect to making any modifications to the decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007