Appeal No. 2005-0583
Application No. 10/116,494
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilkes.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hayes.
Finally, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hayes.
The appealed claims have been separately grouped and argued
by the appellant as indicated on page 3 of the brief. It follows
that we will separately consider each of these claims in our
disposition of the subject appeal.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer as
well as the final Office action for an exposition of the opposing
viewpoints expressed by the appellant and by the examiner
concerning the above noted rejections.
1(...continued)
the statement plainly should have referred to the Wilkes
reference. In addition, it is especially unfortunate that, on
page 4 of the answer, the examiner and his conferees refer to the
final Office action for a statement and discussion of the
rejections on appeal particularly since they had acknowledged on
page 3 of the answer that this Office action contained
conflicting statements regarding the section 102 rejection of
claim 14 based on Wilkes. Despite these repeated misstatements
and oversights by the examiner and his conferees, we are
reasonably satisfied by our thorough review of the file record as
a whole that the prior section 102 rejection of claim 14 based on
Wilkes has been withdrawn and thus is not before us on this
appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007