Appeal No. 2003-0271 Page 3
Application No. 09/592,058
the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 8, filed April 30, 2002) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Initially we note that the objection to claims 9 and 20 under 37 CFR § 1.75(c)
relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we can not review this
objection argued by the appellants in the brief (pp. 4-5) and responded to by the
examiner in the answer (pp. 8-9).
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9, 10, 12 to 18 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007