Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 10
has not been sufficiently rebutted by appellants. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 2. Appellants assert (brief, page 9)
that the portions of Mandel relied upon by the examiner do not
show each and every limitation of claim 2. However, appellants
do not set forth any limitations of the claim that they consider
to not be met by Mandel. From appellants' response, we find that
appellants have not complied with the procedural requirements of
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii).
From our review of the record, we find that the examiner
(answer, page 5) has provided a reasonable basis why claim 2 is
considered to be anticipated by Mandel. From the lack of a
specific response by appellants, we are not persuaded of any
error on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 18. Appellants
assert (brief, page 9) that the portions of Mandel relied upon by
the examiner do not show each and every limitation of claim 18.
However, appellants do not set forth any limitations of the claim
that they consider to not be met by Mandel. From appellants'
response, we find that appellants have not complied with the
procedural requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007