Appeal No. 2005-1059 Page 2
Application No. 09/836,045
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Cornelius et al. (Cornelius) 3,334,767 Aug. 8, 1967
Apps et al. (Apps ‘874) 4,899,874 Feb. 13, 1990
Apps et al. (Apps ‘002) 4,978,002 Dec. 18, 1990
Hammett 5,487,487 Jan. 30, 1996
Apps (Apps ‘352) 5,501,352 Mar. 26, 1996
Apps et al. (Apps ‘176) 5,529,176 Jun. 25, 1996
Apps et al. (Apps ‘461) 5,651,461 Jul. 29, 1997
Apps et al. (Apps ‘572) 4,842,572 Dec. 1, 1998
McGrath 6,047,844 Apr. 11, 2000
Apps et al. (Apps ‘793) 6,073,793 Jun. 13, 2000
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Apps ‘572, Apps ‘461, Apps ‘176, Apps ‘352, Hammett, Apps ‘002 and Apps ‘874.1
Claims 1-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Apps ‘793.
Claims 1-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Apps ‘793, Apps ‘572, Apps ‘461, Apps ‘176, Apps ‘352, Hammett, Apps ‘002 or Apps
‘874 in view of McGrath and Cornelius.
1 The examiner’s application of 8 substantially duplicative references, in the alternative, in
rejecting appellant’s claims is in clear violation of the guidance set forth in Section 706.02 (CHOICE OF
PRIOR ART; BEST AVAILABLE, page 700-20) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP).
Nevertheless, in the interest of administrative efficiency, we have decided that it would be more prudent
for this panel to render a decision on this appeal than to remand the application to the examiner to restrict
the rejections to the best prior art in compliance with the MPEP.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007