Appeal No. 09/536,531
Application 2005-0494
No. 30) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
examiner's rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 24) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 27) (pages
referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together (Br3).
Claim 1 is taken as representative.
There are two issues on appeal. The first issue is
appellant’s claim that the examiner's answer raises a new ground
of rejection (RBr2). The second issue deals with the obviousness
rejection of Ng in view of Godin.
No New Ground of Rejection
The question of whether the examiner's answer raises a new
ground of rejection is not within our jurisdiction. The Board's
jurisdiction is limited to rejections of claims. Nevertheless,
the examiner's answer does not raise a new ground of rejection
because it merely clarifies that the examiner used the prior art
disclosed in Godin, and not the actual Godin invention; note that
both the final rejection and the examiner's answer cite to
column 1, lines 10-17.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007