Appeal 2006-2989
Application 10/298,129
in the specification teaches that the claimed methods and apparatus are
known to one of ordinary skill in the art as means to use chips of
polysilicon” (Answer 6, 1st ¶). Appellants have not made the argument that
the claimed classifier is not prior art to the present application and pages 11
and 12 of the Specification referred to above seem to indicate that the
claimed classifier is prior art.
Accordingly, this application is remanded to the Examiner for the
purpose of allowing the Examiner to complete the examination of the claims
on appeal. The Examiner must give full weight and consideration to the
claimed step of sorting the comminuted silicon rods using a step deck
classifier and must determine the obviousness of doing so in light of the
applied prior art and the admitted prior art found in Appellants’
Specification, as well as any other prior art known to the Examiner. The
Examiner should also have Appellants state on the record whether the step
deck classifier disclosed at page 12 of the specification is prior art to the
claimed invention. The Examiner should bear in mind that it appears that
the present specification attaches no criticality to using the claimed
classifier. Also, the Examiner should apply this analysis to all the claims on
appeal which recite the step deck classifier as a limitation. The Examiner’s
attention is directed to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 2116.01.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007