Appeal No. 2004-2239
Application No. 09/975,417
Appellant’s failure to contest the rejection under 35
USC 112, first paragraph, in SN’561 is considered to
be a de facto acquiescence to the validity of the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC 112, first
paragraph, regarding the inadequate disclosure of the
spring-loaded retaining plate/member in the parent
application SN’561 and grand parent application
SN’022.
We note, however, that the examiner provides no legal
authority for this perceived “de facto acquiescence” on the part
of the appellant to the rejection.
For these reasons, we reverse the examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of appealed claims 5 through 8 as
anticipated by Gapinski.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007