Ex Parte 5253341 et al - Page 7




               Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742                                                                                   
               Patent 5,253,341                                                                                                       

          1    table that correlates the page numbers (but not the paragraph numbers) of the Second Koopman                           
          2    Declaration with the paragraph numbers employed in the Final Action.  Brief at 57-58.                                  
          3            In the Answer,21 which runs 220 pages, the statements of the rejections appear at pages 7-                     
          4    26 and are assigned paragraph numbers (i.e., paras. 2-24) that differ from the paragraph numbers                       
          5    employed in the Final Action and the Third Action.  The § 103(a) rejection of claims 10 and 11                         
          6    based on Paolini in view of Gargini and Official Notice was withdrawn at page 26, paragraph 31.                        
          7    The Second Koopman Declaration is discussed at pages 40-220.                                                           
          8            The Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on March 24, 2005, simply updates the                                      
          9    identification of the real party in interest.                                                                          
         10            Prior to docketing of this appeal, the reexamination file was returned to the examiner to                      
         11    obtain clarification of some matters in the Brief and the Answer, including whether certain                            
         12    previously asserted rejections that were not repeated in the answer have been withdrawn.22  A                          
         13    response was filed by the examiner23 and then by appellant.24  In that response appellant argues,                      
         14    inter alia, that the examiner's citation of so many references against claims 9-11 and 14 is                           

                                                                                                                                     
                       21   Paper No. 39.                                                                                             
                       22   Paper No. 40, mailed February 28, 2005.                                                                   
                       23   Paper No. 42, mailed April 29, 2005.  The examiner explained that the following                           
               rejections are not being maintained: (a) the § 112 rejection of claim 98 as lacking written                            
               description support; (b) the § 103(a) rejection of claim 11 based on Filepp in view of Row;                            
               (c) the § 103(a) rejection of claims 95 and 98 based on Baji in view of Sugiyama; (d) § 103(a)                         
               rejection of claim 11 based on Rozmanith '652 in view of "known practices"; and (e) the § 112                          
               rejections of claims 95, 98, and 103.  The examiner also confirmed that the § 103(a) rejection of                      
               claims 9-11 and 14 based on Filepp in combination with well known practices is being                                   
               maintained.                                                                                                            
                       24   Paper received May 24, 2005.                                                                              
                                                            - 7 -                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007