Appeal 2007-0107
Application 10/013,885
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Hardy US 3,118,887 Jan. 21, 1964
Duennenberger (I) US 3,259,627 Jul. 5, 1966
Duennenberger (II) US 3,270,016 Aug. 30, 1966
Schellenbaum US 3,278,534 Oct. 11, 1966
Biland US 3,293,249 Dec. 20, 1966
Grossmann US 3,957,780 May 18, 1976
Susi US 4,619,956 Oct. 28, 1986
Claims 1, 5-10, 17, and 28-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hardy or Susi, each in view of Duennenberger I,
Duennenberger II, Schellenbaum, Biland, or Grossman.1
Appellants argue the claims as a group with an emphasis in the
argument added for claim 28 (Br. 12). Thus, we select claim 1 as the
representative claim on which we shall decide this appeal as to the rejected
1 Claims 29-31 were inadvertently omitted from the Examiner’s statement
of this rejection as set forth in the Office action mailed December 09, 2005.
Compare the rejected claims identified in the Office Action Summary with
the rejected claims identified in the grounds of rejection set forth on page 2
of the December 09, 2005 Office Action. Also, this Office Action
inconsistently identifies itself as a non-final action and a final action. See
item 2(b) of the Office Action Summary and page 3 of the December 09,
2005 Office Action. However, the claims are twice rejected, a subsequently
filed amendment was entered by the Examiner and the record reflects that
Appellants have voiced no complaint via petition. Indeed, Appellants list
claims 29-31 as being among the rejected claims which are the subject of
this appeal (Brief 10) and the Examiner lists claims 29-31 as being among
the rejected claims in the Answer. See Answer 3. Thus, these
inconsistencies are sufficiently resolved to proceed with deciding this appeal
as to the rejected claim, including claims 29-31. No prejudicial error is
apparent. A separate obviousness rejection over Hardy and a separate
obviousness rejection over Susi, which rejections are addressed in the Brief,
are no longer maintained by the Examiner (Answer 2 and 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013