Appeal No. 2006-1603
Application No. 10/646,675
CONCLUSION
To summarize:
• The decision of the examiner to reject claims 18 and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Vidal is not sustained.
• The decision of the examiner to reject claims 18 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Vidal is sustained.
• The decision of the examiner to reject claims 18 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Metcalf is
sustained.
• A new ground of rejection rejecting claims 18 and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Metcalf, which fully
incorporates the contents of Burchette, is newly entered.
• The appeal is remanded to the examiner to consider the applicability of
Hickle toward the issue of patentability of claim 9 when combined with the
teachings of Metcalf, which fully incorporates the contents of Burchette.
Regarding the affirmed rejection(s), 37 CFR § 41.52(a)(1) provides "[a]ppellant may
file a single request for rehearing within two months from the date of the original
decision of the Board."
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one or more claims, this
opinion contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b) and a
remand pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(e) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg.
49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007