Appeal No. 2004-2299
Application No. 09/244,006
The examiner has relied on Goodman, U.S. Patent No. 3,634,178,
issued Jan. 11, 1972, as the sole evidence of unpatentability
(Answer, page 3). The following rejections are before this merits
panel for review in this appeal:
(1) claims 23-24 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Goodman (Answer, page 4);
(2) claims 31-32 and 38 stand rejected under section 102(b) as
anticipated by Goodman (Answer, page 6);
(3) claims 39-40 and 46 stand rejected under section 102(b) as
anticipated by Goodman (Answer, page 8);
(4) claims 25-29, 47-51 and 62-63 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goodman (Answer, page 5);
(5) claims 33-37, 52-56 and 64-65 stand rejected under section
103(a) as unpatentable over Goodman (Answer, page 7);1 and
1The examiner inadvertently omitted claims 52-54 from this
rejection in the final Office action and the Answer (see the
Remand to the Examiner dated Sep. 30, 2003, Paper No. 24, pages
2-3). The examiner has now indicated that claims 52-54 should be
grouped in this rejection and appellant does not traverse this
new inclusion of claims in this rejection (Supplemental Answer
dated Jan. 28, 2004, Paper No. 26, page 2; Supplemental Brief
dated Feb. 9, 2004, page 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007