Appeal No. 2006-0160 Page 3
Application No. 10/029,818
reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that appellant, at the time the application was
filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Vesey in view of Arginsky and Amen-Ra A.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner’s answer
(mailed April 27, 2004), first supplemental examiner's answer (mailed April 8, 2005) and
second supplemental examiner’s answer (mailed May 3, 2005) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellant's brief (filed February
25, 2004), first reply brief (filed May 11, 2004), second reply brief (filed April 22, 2005)
and third reply brief (filed May 13, 2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
The unusual number of reply briefs and supplemental answers in the record of this
application subsequent to the brief and first reply brief is in large part the result of the
inexplicable and seemingly unfounded statement on page 1 of appellant’s first reply
brief to the effect that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph “is apparently
withdrawn.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007