Appeal No. 2004-1293
Application No. 09/989,330
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as follows:
I. claims 1 through 11, 14 through 16, 18 through 27, and
30 through 32 as unpatentable over Gillinder
(examiner’s answer mailed Jun. 23, 2003, paper 13,
pages 3-4; final Office action, pages 2-4);2
II. claims 12, 13, 28, and 29 as unpatentable over
Gillinder in view of DiLernia and Gates (answer, page
4; final office action, page 5); and
III. claim 17 as unpatentable over Gillinder in view of
Satterlee (answer, pages 4-5; final Office action,
page 5).
We reverse rejections I and II but affirm rejection III.
In addition, we enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to our
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(2003)(effective Dec. 1, 1997).
2 The statement of the rejection as set forth in the Jun.
23, 2003 answer omitted claims 2-11, 14-16, 18-27, and 30-32.
In an order mailed Oct. 27, 2003 (paper 16), a Program and
Administrator of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
required clarification of various matters including the omission
of these claims. In response, the examiner indicates that
claims 2-11, 14-16, 18-27, and 30-32 should have been rejected
on this ground. (Supplemental examiner’s answer mailed Jan. 14,
2004, paper 18, p. 3.) We note, however, that the examiner’s
issuance of a supplemental answer without our authorization
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1)(2003)(effective Dec. 1, 1997)
is inappropriate. Under these circumstances, we will ignore the
supplemental answer except as to clarification of matters
specifically raised in the Oct. 27, 2003 order.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007