Appeal No. 2004-0106
Application 09/907,974
examiner’s additional application of Rexford or Hsiao against
claim 30 is superfluous.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 31 through 35 as being unpatentable
over Jarvis in view of Rexford or Hsiao since the appellant has
not challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby
allowing these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 30 (see
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987)).
Because our rationale for sustaining the rejections of claim
30, and claims 31 through 35 which stand or fall therewith,
differs from that advanced by the examiner, we hereby designate
our action in this regard as a new ground of rejection under 37
CFR § 1.196(b) in order to afford the appellant a fair
opportunity to react thereto. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300,
1302-03, 190 USPQ 425, 426-27 (CCPA 1976).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject 24 through 27 and 29
through 35 is affirmed with respect to claims 30 through 35 and
reversed with respect to claims 24 through 27 and 29, with the
affirmance designated as a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007