Appeal No. 2006-0325 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/152,485
rejection, we have made such inference and decided the appeal of the following
rejections.
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being drawn to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement in that they contain subject
matter which, according to the examiner, was not described in the specification in such
a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that appellant, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Westermann2.
1 The status of the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11 as being anticipated by Westermann is
unclear. These claims were so rejected in the final rejection and there is no indication on the record that
the examiner has withdrawn the rejection with respect to these claims. As neither appellant's brief nor the
examiner's answer addresses the rejection with respect to these claims, the record is unclear as to
whether (1) the examiner has withdrawn the rejection with respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11, (2)
appellant has withdrawn the appeal with respect to these claims or (3) both the examiner and appellant
consider these claims as standing rejected as being anticipated by Westermann but not separately argued
apart from claims 1 and 6. We leave it to the examiner to clarify the status of these claims on the record
upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the Technology Center.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007