Appeal No. 2004-2315
Application No. 09/348,155
conveying stream or a second conveying stream. A further
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 6, copies of which can be found in the
appendix to appellants’ main brief.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Carricato 3,841,625 Oct. 15, 1974
Rahe 4,534,552 Aug. 13, 1985
Curley et al. (Curley) 5,927,712 Jul. 27, 1999
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rahe in view of Curley and Carricato.1
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 10 and 12) and to the examiner’s final rejection and
1Although the statement of the rejection appearing on page
3 of the examiner’s answer does not include dependent claims 2-5,
7 and 8, it is clear from a review of the final rejection,
appellants’ main brief and the totality of the examiner’s answer
that the standing rejection continues to apply to all the pending
claims. Normally, rejections of claims which are not repeated in
the answer are considered to have been withdrawn by the examiner.
See, for example, Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957). In the present case, appellants’ grouping of the claims
as set forth on page 5 of the main brief in no way relieves the
examiner of the obligation to expressly state in the answer
exactly what references and rejections are applicable to the
appealed claims.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007