Appeal No. 2002-2321
Application 09/283,268
The examiner relies on the following references:
Cochran et al. (Cochran) 5,206,949 Apr. 27, 1993
Kamakura et al. (Kamakura) 6,047,310 Apr. 4, 2000
(filed Jul. 10, 1996)
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20, and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Cochran.1 Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Cochran
in view of Kamakura.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
1 Although the examiner’s answer states on page 3 that claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11,
13-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the examiner
subsequently states that appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 3, 4,
10, 13, 14, and 20 are “deemed to be persuasive.” [examiner’s answer, page
5.] After considering the examiner’s admission in light of the totality of
the record before us, we presume the examiner did not intend to maintain the
rejection with respect to claims 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, and 20. Rather, we presume
the examiner intended to object to those claims as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but would consider such claims to be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims. Therefore, we consider this rejection as
applied only to claims 1, 5-8, 11, 15-18, and 21.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007