Appeal No. 2006-1230 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/137,586
found on pages 4 and 5 of the answer. Appellants' position
(brief, page 6) is that with respect to the subject matter
depicted in figures 3(a) and 3(b) of Saito, it is not clear from
the portion of the disclosure whether or not Saito expressly or
inherently describes that the material from which characters 2
and polarity mark 3 are formed is energy-reacted. It is asserted
(reply brief, page 2) that prior to the examiner’s answer, the
examiner relied upon the abstract and drawings of Saito. In the
examiner’s answer, the examiner relied upon an English language
translation of Saito. Appellant argues (id.) that the examiner’s
reliance in the answer, on an English language translation of
Saito and not just the abstract and drawings of Saito,
constitutes a new ground of rejection. Appellant adds (reply
brief, page 3) that “[i]n any event, it is respectfully submitted
that several of the claims that remain pending in the above-
referenced application recite subject matter that is not
anticipated by the disclosure of Saito.” Appellant then proceeds
to argue claims 8, 14 and 19, but presents no additional
arguments regarding claim 1.
At the outset, we note that in the final rejection, the
examiner rejects claims 1-20 as being unpatentable over Saito.
The examiner does not state that only the abstract and drawings
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007