Appeal No. 2005-2338
Application No. 09/754,001
Other Issues
As noted in footnotes there are several limitations in the claims, which lack
antecedent basis. Appellants and the examiner should insure that these
discrepancies are rectified in the application.
In summary, we sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 9 through
11, 15 through 18, and 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and the examiner’s
rejection of claims 7, 8, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 2 through 4, 12 through 13, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
REN/kis
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007