Appeal No. 2005-1458
Application No. 09/732,799 Page 3
Claims 17-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Tsuji and Anthony.2
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants* arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner in
rejecting product claim 17. Accordingly, we will affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claim 17 for substantially the reasons
set forth by the examiner in the answer and as further discussed
below. We reverse the examiner’s rejection of method claims 18,
19 and 20. Our reasoning follows.
2 The examiner’s reference to claims 22-32 as rejected
claims at page 3 of the answer is taken as a word processing or
typographical error. Similarly, the examiner’s reference to
claim 23 at page 4 of the answer and claims 23 and 27 at page 6
of the answer are construed as repetitive errors that do not
prejudice appellants. In an advisory action mailed April 17,
2003, the examiner noted that claims 17-19 and 21 remain rejected
and indicated that an amendment after final (ostensibly the
second after final amendment filed April 01, 2003 that canceled
claims 20 and 22-32) would be entered. See page 1 of the
supplemental brief filed April 01, 2003 under the caption “STATUS
OF CLAIMS.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007