Appeal No. 2004-0906
Application No. 09/571,896
The examiner has relied upon the following references in
support of the rejections on appeal:
Bumgarner 1,352,500 Sep. 14, 1920
Crispen 2,088,690 Aug. 03, 1937
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite (Answer, page 2). Claims 1,
3, 5-7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Bumgarner or Crispen (Answer, page 3). Claims 4 and 8 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bumgarner or
Crispen (Answer, page 4). Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Crispen (id.).2 We affirm the
rejection based on section 112, ¶2, as well as the section 102(b)
rejections over Bumgarner or Crispen and the rejection of claim 10
under section 103(a) over Crispen essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below. We reverse
2The examiner states that “the rejection based upon White
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the portion of the rejection based upon
Bumgarner under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.” Answer, page
2, ¶(3). In addition, we determine that the rejections of claims
4 and 8 under section 103(a) over White and of claim 10 under
section 103(a) over White in view of Black (see the final Office
action dated Dec. 3, 2002, Paper No. 12) have not been repeated
in the Answer, while Bumgarner has been applied under section
103(a) against claims 4 and 8. Any rejections not repeated in
the Answer are considered as withdrawn. See Paperless Accounting
v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Sys., 804 F.2d 659, 663, 231 USPQ 649,
652 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007