Appeal 2003-2019
Application 90/004,933
(see Second Amendment of January 10, 2005 and Third Amendment of
January 28, 20051). The Examiner entered the Third Amendment and
determined that this Third Amendment overcame the new ground of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 305 (Office Communication of March 4, 2005)
we applied in the Decision. The Examiner also determined that the Third
Amendment did not affect the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Id.).
Therefore, the Request for Rehearing is now ready for our review.
In our Decision of May 28, 2004, we sustained the rejection of claims
24, 25, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shine in view of Perrin,
Product Alert, and McGrath, but did not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Perrin in view of Keller, Product Alert, and McGrath.2
We denominated our affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection
under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).3 As noted above, we also made a new ground of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 305. Because the rejection over Perrin in view
of Keller, Product Alert, and McGrath was not sustained, and the Examiner
determined that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 305 was overcome by
amendment; the only remaining rejection at issue is the Section 103(a)
rejection over Shine in view of Perrin, Product Alert, and McGrath.
As an initial matter, we note that Appellant does not present any
arguments disputing our interpretation of the “substantially enclosing”
1 The electronic file wrapper lists dates of January 13, 2005 and January 31,
2005 for these documents, however, the certificate of mailing indicates that
the documents were filed on January 10 and 28, respectively.
2 Claim 1, while pending and rejected, is not subject to appeal (Brief of
December 5, 2001, p. 2).
3 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) has since been replaced with 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(eff.
September 13, 2004).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007