Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 15, 18, and 24 and dependent claims
2, 17, and 19 for the reasons provided supra. The Appellant did not provide any
further arguments for separate patentability of dependent claims 3-8, 16, and
20-23, and thus these claims fall with their respective independent claims 1, 15,
and 18. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
REMAND
The Examiner fails to set forth any grounds of rejection of claims 25-27 in
the Answer (dated May 18, 2006). We further note that none of the office actions
(dated November 16, 2005, June 1, 2005, February 17, 2005, and August 26, 2004)
addressed claims 25-27. As such, no rejection of these claims is before us. We
remand this case to the Examiner, in light of our affirmance of the other rejections,
to consider whether rejection of claims 25-27 is appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-8 and 15-24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 15-24 is affirmed and
the case is remanded to the Examiner for further consideration of the patentability
of claims 25-27.
24
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013