Ex Parte Kane - Page 3



            Appeal 2006-3331                                                                               
            Application 10/829,797                                                                         
                   Abecassis                 US 5,426,281                  Jun. 20, 1995                   
                   Walker                    US 6,193,155 B1               Feb. 27, 2001                   
                   Tedesco                   US 6,282,523 B2               Aug. 28, 2001                   
                   Dahl                      US 6,321,201 B1               Nov. 20, 2001                   
                   Sunderji                  US 2003/0236728 A1            Dec. 25, 2003                   
                   McNeal                    US 6,728,397 B2               Apr. 27, 2004                   
                  The following rejections are before us for review:                                       
               1. Claims 1 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable                  
                  over McNeal, Braun, and Abecassis.1                                                      
               2. Claims 2, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable             
                  over McNeal and Abecassis.2                                                              
                                                                                                          
            1 The addition of Abecassis to this rejection appears for the first time in the                
            Examiner’s Answer (Answer 3).  Although an Examiner’s Answer may contain a                     
            new ground of rejection, 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2) (2006), any such new ground of                
            rejection must be approved by a Technology Center Director or designee and                     
            prominently identified in the “Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal”                  
            section and the “Grounds of Rejection” section of the Answer.  See MPEP                        
            § 1207.03.  In the interest of expediency, and because the Appellant addressed                 
            Abecassis on pages 6-7 of his Reply Brief and was thus afforded an opportunity to              
            respond to this new ground of rejection, we will not remand the case to the                    
            Examiner for correction.                                                                       
            2 We do not understand how the Examiner can reject dependent claims based on                   
            fewer than all of the references used to reject the corresponding independent                  
            claims, since the dependent claims include all of the limitations in the independent           
            claims from which they depend.  In particular, the Examiner relied on Braun for                
            the rejection of independent claims 1, 15, 18, and 24, but failed to include Braun in          
            the list of references relied upon for rejection of dependent claims 2-8, 16, 17, and          
            19-23.  The Appellant failed to raise this issue in their briefs, and since we do not          
            find it necessary to rely on the teachings of Braun to affirm the rejections of                
            independent claims 1, 15, 18, and 24, this error on the part of the Examiner is                
                                                    3                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013