Appeal 2007-0062
Application 10/706,797
1 matter and are also not entitled to the benefit of any of their earlier filed
2 applications3.
3 In response, Applicants’ argue that they do have support for the
4 claimed terms (Br. 17-18). As outlined above, Applicants have failed to
5 demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejections. Applicants also argue that
6 since the Examiner has “determined that the inventions are separate and
7 distinct [he] cannot ignore the plain meaning of the statute in order to serve
8 the Examiner’s opinion for rejection of the claims” (Br. 18). It is difficult to
9 understand Applicants’ argument. Based on the record before us, the
10 Examiner has made no determination that the claimed “inventions are
11 separate and distinct.” The Examiner determined that Applicants’ claims
12 48-51 and 58-60, which are identical to Gates claims 20-23 and 30-32
13 respectively, are not supported by Applicants’ specification. Based on the
14 record before us, Applicants have failed to demonstrate error in the
15 Examiner’s rejection. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
16 of claims 48-51 and 58-60 as being clearly anticipated by Gates.
3 Application 10/706,797 claims the benefit of, and is said to be a divisional
of application 09/890,083, filed 25 July 2001, which is said to be a national
stage entry of PCT/CA00/00114, filed 7 February 2000. Applicants also
claim the benefit of Canadian Application No. 2,262,276, filed 15 February
1999.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013