Appeal 2006-2778
Application 10/780,021
DECISION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect
to all claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
33-56 is affirmed.4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
rwk
Law Office of Carmen Pili Ekstrom
727 Sunshine Dr.
Los Altos, CA 94024
4 As an ancillary observation, we note that no antecedent basis exists for “the
thermal treatment” in claim 51 and “the thin protecting tape material” in
claim 53. Also, claim 56 recites a number of redundant limitations that
merely repeat limitations recited in independent claim 33. Because the
parties did not raise these issues on appeal, they are therefore not before us.
In an ex parte appeal, "the [B]oard . . . is basically a board of review − we
review … rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62
USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2001). Therefore, we leave
resolution of these issues to the Examiner and Appellants.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013