Appeal No. 2003-1650
Application No. 09/411,106
and Momberg (see page 8 of the final Office action) as regards
claims 20 and 21. Similarly, the record requires clarification
with respect to the final rejection under § 103 based on Karpoff
and Magda (see page 9 of the final Office action) as regards claim
56.
The Examiner’s failure to clarify the record concerning the
status of these rejections and claims is particularly unfortunate
because at least some of these rejections and claims have been
separately and specifically argued by the Appellants (e.g., see
pages 14, 15, 27-30, 32, and 38 of the brief wherein arguments are
advanced against each of these rejections and the arguments involve
at least some of the claims under consideration), whereas the
Examiner in her answer fails to acknowledge much less address any
of these arguments. More unfortunate is the fact that the Examiner
or more precisely (and even more unfortunately) the Supervisory
Patent Examiner has entered the Appellants’ reply brief without
responding to the comments therein (e.g., see the first and second
full paragraphs on page 6, the second full paragraph on page 9, the
first full paragraph on page 11 and the paragraph bridging pages 11
and 12 of the reply brief) regarding the Examiner’s failure to
mention these rejections and claims. Presumably, these multiple
and repeated omissions by the Examiner and her Supervisory Patent
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007