Appeal 2007-0062
Application 10/706,797
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Gates US 6,550,226 Apr. 22, 2003
4
5 Claims 48-51 and 58-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
6 paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
7 (Final Rejection 2 and Answer 3).
8 Claims 48-51 and 58-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
9 being anticipated by Gates (Final Rejection 3 and Answer 4).
10 B. Issue
11 The first issue before us is whether Applicants have shown that the
12 Examiner erred in determining claims 48-51 and 58-60 to be unpatentable
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
14 The second issue before us is whether Applicants have shown that the
15 Examiner erred in determining claims 48-51 and 58-60 to be unpatentable
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Gates.
17 C. Findings of fact (“FF”)
18 The record supports the following findings of fact as well as any other
19 findings of fact set forth in this opinion by at least a preponderance of the
20 evidence.
21 1. Applicants’ claims 48-51 and 58-60 are the subject of this appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013