Appeal No. 2006-0356 3
Application No. 10/228,742
In this regard, in rejecting the claims the examiner should distinguish more clearly
between claims which include “container” and “segment” limitations, such as claim 1; and
those that do not , such as claims 19 (no container), 36 (no container), 53 (no container or
segments), 71 (no segments), 83 (no segments), 85 (no container or segments), 87 (no
container or segments), and 90 (no container or segments).
Third we note that in the “Evidence Relied Upon” section of the answer, the
examiner has failed to include Leung et al. and Ream et al., which should be included
since they are two of the four references relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
claims.
Fourth, on page 3 of the answer the examiner has identified Ream et al. by two
different patent numbers. The examiner should make sure the references are identified
by their correct patent numbers.
Fifth, the examiner has addressed some, but not all, of the claims separately
argued by appellants in their brief. In this regard, we note that claims 72-78 have been
separately discussed in the brief, but not separately addressed in the answer.
In view of the foregoing, we remand the application to the examiner, and require
that the examiner take appropriate action consistent with current examining practice to
resolve all of the deficiencies noted above.
This application, by virtue of its “special status”, requires immediate action on the
part of the examiner. See MPEP § 708.01 (8TH ed., Rev. 4, Feb. 2005). It is important
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007