Ex Parte Reed - Page 3


          Appeal No. 2004-1004                                                        
          Application No. 10/011,074                                                  

          anticipated by Elges.  (Answer, page 3; final Office action,                
          page 3.)1                                                                   
               We reverse: (i) the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of                    
          appealed claims 1 and 8 as anticipated by Welch; and (ii) the 35            
          U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of appealed claim 2 as anticipated by             
          Elges.  We affirm, however, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of             
          appealed claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, and 9 as anticipated by                  
          Elges.2  Also, we remand this application pursuant to 37 CFR §              
          1.196(a)(2003)(effective Aug. 20, 1989).                                    

                                                                                     
               1  On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states: “Claims 1-9           
          are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).  This rejection is set                 
          forth in prior Office Action, Paper No. 5.”  We note, however,              
          that claim 5 was not finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).             
          Instead, claims 1-4, 8, and 9 were finally rejected under 35                
          U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S. Patent 2,149,054                  
          issued to Jones on Feb. 28, 1939 in view of Elges or Welch                  
          (final Office action, p. 3), while claims 6 and 7 were finally              
          rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones in                
          view of Welch or Elges and further in view of U.S. Patent                   
          3,035,368 issued to Collins on May 22, 1962 (id. at p. 5).                  
          Also, the examiner contradicts the statement made on page 3 of              
          the answer by commenting as follows: “The rejections of claims              
          1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using the Jones reference US 2149054             
          as modified by Elges, Welch and/or Collins reference US 3035368,            
          are dropped in that applicant’s arguments are persuasive.”                  
          (Answer, p. 4.)  Notwithstanding this confusion, we note that               
          the examiner does not dispute the appellant’s understanding                 
          (reply brief filed Dec. 22, 2003, paper 11, pp. 6-7) that the 35            
          U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections based on Jones as a principal                    
          reference have been withdrawn.  (Office letter mailed Feb. 10,              
          2004, paper 12.)  We presume, therefore, that these rejections              
          are not before us in this appeal.                                           
               2  The appellant submits: “Claims 2-7 are dependent on                 
          independent claim 1.  Claim 2 is separately patentable.  Claims             

                                          3                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007