Appeal No. 2006-1221
Application No. 09/846,995
However, we will not sustain the examiners rejection of dependent claims 3-6, 8, 12-
15, 17, 21-24, 26, 28, and 30. We note that the examiner has failed to point out where the
specific limitations for claims 3-6, 8, 12-15, 17, 21-24, 26, 28, and 30 are to be found in the
references. We can find no teaching within the cited references of the specific limitations
recited in these claims.
Lastly, we bring to the examiner’s attention a 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph
antecedent basis problem created by the language “the at least one criterion” as recited
within allowed claim 34.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejections with respect to claims 1, 2,
9-11, 18-20, 27, 29, and 31, but we have not sustained the rejections with respect to claims 3-
6, 8, 12-15, 17, 21-24, 26, 28 and 30. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-24, and 26-31 is affirmed-in-part.
-14-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007