Appeal No. 2006-2374 Page 12
Application No. 10/164,670
to the scope and content of the Stolmeier disclosure in the Brief or Reply Brief.
Based on the examiner’s findings as to the scope and content of Stolmeier and the
motivation to combine discussed above, we hold that claims 16 and 17 are also
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Loefberg in view of Stolmeier.
Observations and Remarks
Because we are primarily a board of review, we have applied the Loefberg
and Stolmeier references only to claims 16, 17, and 25. We leave it to the
examiner to determine whether these references, alone or in combination with
other pertinent references of which the examiner is aware, should be applied to any
or all of the remaining claims on appeal.
Drawing Objection
The appellants seek to have the Board review the propriety of a drawing
objection under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) made by the examiner in the final office
action. Any challenge to a final drawing objection should be taken by petition to
the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. As such, this matter is not properly
before the Board, and we decline to review it here. See M.P.E.P. §§ 1002 and
1201.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007