Appeal No. 2004-2111
Application No. 09/535,550
Notwithstanding the apparently contrary view expressed by
the examiner on page 3 of the answer, the appellant has plainly
stated in the brief and reply brief his desire that the claims be
individually considered in this appeal. Accordingly, we will
individually consider these claims to the extent that they have
been separately argued by the appellant. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(VII)(2004), formerly 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002).
Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1991) .
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain the examiner’s section 103 rejection of
claim 27 as being unpatentable over JP ‘051 or the section 103
rejection of claims 7 and 26 as being unpatentable over JP ‘740
or the section 103 rejection of claims 2 and 3 as being
unpatentable over JP ‘410. However, for the reasons expressed in
the answer and below, we will sustain each of the other section
102 and section 103 rejections before us on this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007