Appeal No. 2006-0494 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/285,801
over the admitted prior art at page 1, lines 10-17 of appellants’
specification in view of Pyke and Burlett.1
1 Appellants maintain that the sentence beginning on line 17 of specification page
1 and continuing on through line 19 thereof is not acknowledged as prior art (brief,
pages 7 and 8) and the examiner has seemingly accepted that limitation on what may
be regarded as admitted prior art at page 1 of the specification. See page 12 of the
examiner’s answer. Thus, the examiner’s reference to lines 10-19 of appellants’
specification as representing admitted prior at page 8 of the answer is considered to
include an incorrect citation in that the record reflects that the prior art acknowledgment
of appellants does not extend to the end of line 19 but rather ends at the end of the
sentence concluding on line 17 of that specification page. We have corrected that
obvious error in our reporting of the examiner’s second stated obviousness rejection
herein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007