Appeal 2007-0040
Application 10/170,069
Patent 6,073,699
9. Simultaneously with the Second Preliminary Amendment,
Appellant filed an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”) citing six prior
art references and an International Search Report (listing the six references)
from the International Application PCT/GB99/00664 corresponding to the
original application.
10. The prior art submitted with the IDS included:
Holmes US 1,021,984 Apr. 2, 1912
Schivley US 4,834,441 May 30, 1989
Stringfellow EP 0171144 Oct. 18, 1989
11. The International Search Report indicated for claims 1-5 of the
PCT application3, with respect to Holmes and Schivley each taken
separately, that “the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot
be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken
alone.”
12. Which respect to the original application, Holmes, Schivley,
and Stringfellow are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
13. On September 9, 1999, the Examiner entered a Non-Final
Office Action (“Non-Final Action”).
14. Claims 7-8, 10-15, 19, and 21-27 were rejected on various
grounds.
3 Appellant’s International Publication WO 99/45230 of International
Application PCT/GB99/00664 shows that, although they are not duplicates,
the contents of PCT claims 1-5 does correspond to originally filed
claims 1-5 of Appellant’s original application 09/036,271.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013