Appeal No. 2003-0188
Application No. 09/781,386
I.
In our previous decision, we affirmed the rejection of claims 24, 25 and 28 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Williams or Struss; claims 21,
29, 30, 33, 35 and 36 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or in the alternative under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Patel; and claims 21, 29, 30 and 34 to 36 17-18 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Smith.
In review of our previous decision, it has come to our attention that there was an
error in the statement of the basis of rejection for claims 21, 26, 27 and 34 to 36 over the
Williams and Struss references. More specifically, the Examiner in the Answer and the
Appellant in the Briefs indicated that the claims 21, 26, 27 and 34 to 36 were rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Williams or Struss.1 Our decision properly responded to the rejection as argued by the
Appellant and the Examiner.2 We now clarify the record by indicating that we affirmed
the rejection as presented by the Examiner in the Answer and our statements in the body
of the original decision (pages 7 and 8) are correct, while the statement of the basis of
1 See Answer, page 4; Brief, page 13; and Reply Brief, page 5. We also note that
Appellant has presented arguments in the rehearing request acknowledging that claim 26 was
rejected under § 102 over Williams and Struss.
2 In the body of our discussion of the rejections we included the statement “Accordingly,
we determine that the Examiner has met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
unpatentability under sections 102 and 103.” (Decision, page 8).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007