Appeal No. 2006-1746
Application No. 10/375,679
In the Answer (pages 2 and 3) the Examiner lists the following rejections as
being withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 9 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chester.
The rejection of claims 36, 40, 41, and 47-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Lee.
The rejection of claims 36, 38, 40, 41, and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chester in view of Raymond.
The rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chester in view of Raymond.
The rejection of claims 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee in view of Griffith.
The Examiner asserts (Advisory action mailed February 9, 2006) that the
amendment2 submitted with the Reply Brief (filed November 23, 2005) has been
entered. In addition, the Examiner asserts in the Advisory action that "[c]laim 32
was inadvertently not included in the [F]inal rejection, but that if it had been
included, it [claim 32] would have been rejected on the same grounds as claim 13
as unpatentable over Chester in view of Griffith." Not withstanding the Examiner's
assertion, from our review of the Examiner's Answer, we find that no rejection is
presented with respect to claim 32. Nor do we find a rejection of claims 9 or 22, or
34. Accordingly, we agree with Applicants (Reply Br. 2) that the examiner has
presented no rejection of claims 9, 22, and 32, and add that claim 34 is also not
rejected.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013