Appeal No. 2006-0216
Application No. 10/325,203
Claims 22-24, 29-32, 37-39 and 41-43 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by either Holland or Collins.
Claims 25-28, 33-36, 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over either Holland or Collins.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for a thorough discussion of
the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above noted rejections.
OPINION
Notwithstanding a thorough consideration of the arguments advanced in the brief
and reply brief,1 we will sustain each of the rejections advanced on this appeal for the
reasons set forth below.
1 According to recently-promulgated regulation 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(vii), in the argument section
of an appeal brief, “[a]ny claim argued separately should be placed under a subheading identifying the
claim by number”. This provision has not been followed by the appellants in their brief (or reply brief) such
that it is unclear whether certain of the commonly rejected claims on appeal were meant to be separately
argued by the appellants and thus separately considered by the Board. Because the brief was filed (April
4, 2005) less than 7 months after the aforementioned regulation became effective (i.e., September 13,
2004) and to ensure that the appellants receive their administrative due process rights, the failure to fully
comply with our regulatory provision will be disregarded to the extent that we will consider individual
claims which have been specifically identified in the presentation of a particular argument. These are
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007