Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
While appellant criticizes the examiner for his “piece meal”
citation and application of the pertinent prior art and his
restatements and modifications of existing rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 without reopening prosecution, apparently
appellant does not intend to petition its procedural grievances or
otherwise delay our review of the merits of the examiner’s latest
restatement of the rejections of its claims (Reply Brief (RB),
pp. 2-6). Accordingly, we proceed to review the examiner’s
rejections of the invention appellant claims, as represented by
10 Claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of “applicant’s admitted
prior art” (hereafter AAPA) or Ito, and the combined teachings of
Johnson; Haffner; Langworthy; and Ambrosio.
The information disclosed, and issues relating to rejections
on appeal based on information disclosed, by certain prior art
refernces have not been fully analyzed, discussed and/or developed
as a result of the haphazard prosecution and briefing in this
case. For example, it is not clear from this record the extent to
which the examiner continues to rely on the prior art teachings of
Langworthy and Ambrosio. Nor has the examiner expressly denied
20 appellant’s argument that Haffner is nonanalogous art. The
examiner’s belated citation and application of Haffner has limited
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007