Appeal No. 2006-1167
Application No. 09/948,601
As an additional matter for the examiner, we noted in our
earlier Remand (mailed January 11, 2005) that appellants
maintain that:
the examiner erred in numbered item 7 at page 3 of the
answer in asserting that no statement as to why the
claims do not stand or fall together was presented in
the brief. The examiner should also review that matter
to determine if an additional explanation of the
rejection(s) as to any separately argued claims is
necessary to make out a prima facie case of
anticipation and/or obviousness, and/or to rebut the
arguments thereagainst furnished by appellants.”
The examiner has not responded to that portion of our
earlier remand. In particular, we note that appellants state at
page 4 of the brief that the claims do not stand or fall together
and have furnished separate arguments for each of the claims
subject to a § 102 rejection maintained by the examiner at pages
11 and 12 of the brief. Moreover, appellants furnish separate
arguments for each of the claims subject to a § 103 rejection
maintained by the examiner at pages 14-18 of the brief.
Thus, the examiner’s statement at numbered item 7 of page 3
of the answer is clearly incorrect.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007