Appeal No. 2006-1403
Application No. 10/011,665
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Lochkovic in view of Teed
‘118”.1
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the Appellants and by the Examiner concerning this rejection, we
refer to the brief and to the answer respectively for a complete
exposition thereof.
1 This statement of the rejection is taken from the Examiner’s
answer. Previously the Examiner had stated the rejection over
Lochkovic alone with a statement of Official Notice, and a
citation to Teed, in the body of the rejection. Appellants
argue that the Official Notice taken by the Examiner in his
final rejection of October 28, 2004 was improper. However, the
Examiner in his answer has withdrawn the Official Notice and
instead included Teed as a formal part of a 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection. The Appellants have not filed a reply brief to
contest the Examiner’s statement of the rejection in his answer.
Moreover, Appellants’ brief and responses to the non-final
rejection filed August 13, 2004 and final rejection filed
December 22, 2004 indicate that they perceive the rejection as
based on Lochkovic in view of Teed. As such, Appellants’
Official Notice argument is moot, and our consideration of the
appeal is limited to the statement of the rejection as recited
in the Examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007