Appeal 2006-1601
Application 09/828,579
We conclude that even using Appellant’s definition of logic, the subject
matter of claims 11-15 is not patentable over the Sloan patent document for the
reasons discussed in Section V.C.(2) supra.
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has failed to establish that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ehlers.
Appellant has failed to establish that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
2-5, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ehlers.
Claims 1-20 are not patentable.
VII. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed, and the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
We have entered a new ground of rejection against claims 6-20 under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid
termination of proceedings as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new
evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
42
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013