Appeal No. 2006-1216 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/623,674
how Grasso and Bloomfield taken without Mugerwa would have
suggested a claimed air recycle limitation of claim 1, a claim
feature that the examiner allegedly relies on Mugerwa for
suggesting. Whether or not that claim limitation is suggested by
the applied references, including Mugerwa is clearly an issue in
dispute as evinced by appellants’ (brief, pages 13 and 15)
arguments concerning that limitation of claim 1. Yet Mugerwa is
not even applied against several of the dependent claims, which
include that air recycle feature, in the final rejection, as
noted above.
Upon receipt of this application as a result of this remand,
the examiner should take appropriate action to correct the
deficiencies identified above.
This remand to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1)
is made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly,
37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2) applies if a supplemental examiner’s answer
is written in response to this remand by the Board.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007