Appeal 2007-0040
Application 10/170,069
Patent 6,073,699
15. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims was:
Taylor US 3,140,523 Jul. 14, 1964
Stringfellow EP 0171144 Oct. 18, 1989
16. Which respect to the original application, Taylor and
Stringfellow are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
17. Claims 11-15 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite because in-part (Non-Final 2):
(1) Dependent claims 11-15 do not depend from any
independent claim and instead cyclically depend from each other.
(3) Dependent claim 19 depends from canceled claim 17.
18. Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Stringfellow.
19. Claims 7 and 21-27 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Taylor.
20. Claim 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Taylor.
21. In order to maintain a compact prosecution, the Examiner
presumed that claim 11 properly depended from claim 10 and that claim 12
proper depended from either claim 10 or 11. Based on this presumption,
claims 11-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Stringfellow and Taylor.
22. On October 18, 1999, Appellant filed a Third Amendment (“the
Third Amendment”) responding to the Examiner’s Non-Final Action.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013