Appeal 2006-2970
Application 09/224,340
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 13, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Mazura.
Claims 2-5, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mazura and Harris.
Claims 6, 7, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mazura and Martin.2
Claims 14-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mazura and McCarthy.
Claims 12 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mazura, Martin, and McKenzie.3
The rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite is apparently withdrawn since it is not
repeated in the Examiner's Answer. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181
(Bd. App. 1957); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1208 (8th ed.
2 Since claims 6, 7, and 9-11 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 2, which is rejected over Mazura and Harris, claims 6, 7, and 9-11
should be rejected over Mazura, Harris, and Martin.
3 In the non-final Rejection of August 28, 2002, the Examiner rejected
claims 12 and 21 over the combination of Mazura, Martin, and McKenzie.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner rejects claims 12 and 21 over the
combination of Mazura, Harris, and McKenzie. Since claim 12 depends
from claim 2, which is rejected over Mazura and Harris, claim 12 should be
rejected over the combination of Mazura, Harris, and McKenzie. Since
claim 21 depends from claim 6, which is properly rejected over Mazura,
Harris, and Martin (footnote 2), claim 21 should be rejected over the
combination of Mazura, Harris, Martin, and McKenzie.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013