Appeal No. 2006-0722 2
Application No. 09/971,469
In the present appeal, claims 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 2,502,117). In addition, claims 1
through 6 and 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Walsh
(U.S. Patent No. 5,794,812). Claims 2, 4 and 7 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over either
Anderson in view of Mitchard (U.S. Patent No. 4,946,540) or
Anderson in view of Walsh taken further in view of Mitchard.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over either Anderson in view of Goldsborough (U.S.
Patent No. 5,163,891) or Anderson in view of Walsh taken further
in view of Goldsborough.
On August 30, 2004 appellants filed a reply brief. The
reply brief included several pages of arguments and comments
concerning the examiner’s position as set forth in the answer and
specifically urged that the rejections based on Anderson alone
and Anderson in view of Walsh were improper. In response to the
reply brief, the examiner sent out a notice (mailed October 5,
2004) informing appellants that the reply brief had been
“received.” Noting the ambiguity of such a notification, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007