Appeal 2006-2978
Application 10/299,239
In particular, we remand this application to the Examiner to clarify the
record as to the status of all of the pending claims and as to the rejections
being maintained by the Examiner.
Procedural History
In the Final Rejection mailed June 2, 2004, the Examiner presented:
(1) a rejection of claims 14, 16-20, 22, 25-29, 31, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Knight (US 5,678,863);
(2) a rejection of claims 21, 23, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knight (US 5,678,863) in view of Dobrusskin (GB
2,282,145);
(3) a rejection of claims 14, 15, 24, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Revol (US 5,629,055) in view of Tissue
(Electromagnetic Spectrum); and
(4) a rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable
over Hanelt (US 5,827,449).
(5) a statement indicating that the rejection of claims 15 and 24 over
Knight in view of Hanelt US 5, 827, 449 has been withdrawn.
In the Examiner's Answer mailed June 28, 2006, the Examiner
indicated that the rejection of claims 14, 15, 24, and 34 over Revol in view
of Tissue and the separate rejection of claim 23 had been withdrawn. The
Examiner further indicated that Appellants' Brief had omitted claim 24 from
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection over Knight (Answer 3).
Prior to the statement of the rejection in the Examiner's Answer, the
subject matter of claims 15 and 24 had not been rejected under 35 U.S.C.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013