Appeal No. 2006-1479
Application No. 10/324,660
1 Appellants’ argument that only the Abstract of Kaneda is of record
2 and that the translation of the Kaneda reference1 is not of record and cannot
3 be relied upon (Reply 1) is incorrect. It is clear from the Notice of
4 References Cited (PTO-892) attached to the Office Action mailed September
5 29, 2004 that the Kaneda document (JP 10-242095), not the Abstract of the
6 document, is of record and relied upon by the Examiner. See Manual of
7 Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 707.05(e) – II.
8 Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
9 § 103(a) of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 as being
10 unpatentable over Kaneda in view of Iwai and McPhail, claims 6, 9, 17, and
11 20 as being unpatentable over Kaneda in view of Iwai, McPhail and
12 Pavloski, and claims 5 and 15 as being unpatentable over Kaneda in view of
13 Iwai, McPhail and Kikuchi.
14 The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
15 Answer (mailed January 11, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments
16 in the Brief (filed September 28, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed February 22,
17 2006).
1 The Examiner attached to the Answer a machine translation of Kaneda
furnished by the Japanese Patent Office website.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013