Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
DISCUSSION
The basis for the anticipation rejection of claim 1
Requester proposed three rejections of independent claim 1:
(1) claim 1 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Figure 7 of
Brahmbhatt; (2) claim 1 is anticipated under § 102(b) by prior art Figure 17
of Brahmbhatt; and (3) claim 1 is unpatentable for obviousness under
§ 103(a) over Brahmbhatt. See Comments of the 3rd Party Requestor on the
First Office Action and Amendment. The Examiner did not adopt proposed
rejections (2) and (3). See Action Closing Prosecution 7 and 17-18.
Requester argued that the two proposed rejections were proper. See
Comments of the 3rd Party Requestor on the Action Closing Prosecution
and Applicant's Response. The Examiner again did not adopt the proposed
rejections. See Right of Appeal Notice 8 and 18-20.
Requester did not file a notice of appeal under 37 C.F.R. § 1.959(a)(2)
from the Examiner's final determination not to make the proposed rejections,
and did not file a notice of cross appeal under § 1.959(b)(2) from the
Examiner's final determination not to make the proposed rejections in
response to Appellant's Brief on Appeal. Instead, Requester filed
Respondent's Brief on Appeal, and is a "Respondent" rather than a "Cross
Appellant" under 37 C.F.R. § 1.962. Accordingly, only the anticipation
rejection of claim 1 based on Figure 7 of Brahmbhatt is on appeal.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013