Appeal No. 2006-0502 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/051,970
override an applicant's right under the statute to have each
contested ground of rejection by an examiner reviewed and
measured against the scope of at least one claim within the
group of claims subject to that ground of rejection. See
35 U.S.C. §6(b) (2000).
Aside from that error, the examiner has not separately
addressed at least all of the claims that are argued separately
with respect to each of the separate grounds of rejection. For
example, appellants present separate arguments for three
groupings of claims for each of the examiner’s separate
anticipation grounds of rejection at pages 6-8 of the brief, yet
the examiner does not correspondingly address claims from each of
those multiple claim groupings as argued for each separate
anticipation rejection. Indeed, for the secondly presented
anticipation rejection set forth at page 6 of the answer, the
examiner generally refers us to the abstract, Introduction,
Discussion and Conclusion of the reference article being applied
in that rejection. Then, the examiner refers us to the reasoning
of the first stated anticipation rejection involving a different
reference for explaining the application of the second reference
in the second anticipation rejection. That is hardly a detailed
application of the particular teachings of the second reference
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007