Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 some of the rejections differ from the paragraph numbers used in the Final Action. The
2 examiner confirmed that the Rule 131 declarations are effective to remove Yurt as a reference
3 with respect to claims 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, and 102-04 but not with respect to claim 11, the only
4 claim currently rejected over that reference. Final Action at 202, para. 367. The examiner held
5 the Second Koopman Declaration effective to overcome only the § 112, written description
6 rejections of claims 93-99 and 101 and the § 102(e) rejection of claim 103 over Pocock. Id. at 5-
7 6, para. 7. At pages 6-232, the examiner explained why the Second Koopman Declaration is
8 unconvincing as to the remaining rejections. The length of this discussion is due to the fact that
9 it reproduces virtually the entire declaration a passage at a time and follows each quoted passage
10 with the examiner's commentary (in bold).
11 Several different versions of the appeal brief have been filed. All versions except for the
12 brief filed on August 27, 2003 (hereinafter "Brief")19 have been returned to appellant. October 8,
13 2003, “Decision Denying Petition” 20 (referring to the brief now before us as the "third
14 submission"). Much of the Brief consists of a summary of all of the Office actions except the
15 first, the discussion of which (at pages 16-19) has been redacted. Regarding the merits of the
16 rejections given in the Final Action, appellant simply asserts that the rejections set forth in the
17 Final Action were addressed in appellant’s responses to earlier Office actions and relies on a
18 Paper No. 29.
19 Paper No. 37.
20 Paper No. 38.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007