Appeal No. 2005-0812
Application No. 09/792,609
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fadner in view of Schneider, Guaraldi and
Marquez.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fadner in view of Schneider, Guaraldi and
Williams.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fadner in view of Schneider and Guaraldi
and Fuhrmann.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
April 21, 2004 and August 30, 2004) and the answer (mailed June
30, 2004) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.2
DISCUSSION
Fadner, the examiner’s primary reference, pertains to
lithographic printing assemblies. For purposes of the appealed
rejections, the examiner focuses on the embodiment shown in
2
2 In the final rejection (mailed September 18, 2003), claims
1 through 6 also stood rejected on the grounds of obviousness-
type double patenting. As this rejection is not restated in the
answer, we assume that it has been withdrawn by the examiner (see
Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957)), presumably in
light of the terminal disclaimer filed subsequent to final
rejection on December 22, 2003.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007