Appeal No. 2006-2433
Application 10/061,492 Deleted: 10,
the same arguments to claims 46 through 48 (amendment after final rejection
Deleted: , pages
4-7).
In the advisory action mailed November 3, 2004, the Examiner
entered the amendment after final rejection and addressed Appellants’
arguments with respect to claims 43 and 46 through 48 based on Allen in
view of Brouillette (advisory action 2-3). No other reference or ground of
rejection is referred to in the advisory action.
In the Brief filed November 5, 2005, under the heading “(6) Grounds
of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal,” Appellants state only that “Claims
43 and 46-48 stand rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over” Allen
in view of Brouillette, and under the heading “(7) Argument,” argue only
Deleted: ief
this ground of rejection (Br. 5).
Deleted: , page.
In the Answer mailed November 30, 2005,1 the Examiner states that
Deleted: a
“[t]he appellant’s [sic] statement of the ground of rejection to be reviewed
Deleted: ’
on appeal is correct” (Answer 2). However, the Examiner advances the Deleted: s
Formatted
following grounds of rejection in the Answer: claims 43, 46 and 47 under
Deleted: , page
Deleted: e
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen in view of Brouillette; claim 48 under
Deleted: c
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen in view of Brouillette further in view of Deleted:
Deleted:
Pollard Murthy; and claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Allen in view
Deleted:
of Brouillette further in view of Murthy (Answer 3-5). Deleted: , pages
1 The Answer mailed November 30, 2005 is apparently a Supplemental
Answer superceding the first Answer mailed February 15, 2005, as we find
no communication vacating the first Answer as ordered in the Order
Returning the Undocketed Appeal to Examiner entered by the Board on
October 27, 2005.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007