Appeal 2007-0208
Application 10/855,112
In the final rejection, the following rejections were listed by the
Examiner:
(1) Claim 5 is provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of double patenting;
(2) Claims 1 to 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for nonstatutory
subject matter; and
(3) Claims 1 to 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness.
Appellants’ brief responded to all of the rejections in the final
rejection.
In the Answer, the following rejections were listed by the Examiner:
(1) Claim 5 is provisionally rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of double patenting; and
(2) Claims 1 to 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness.
Appellants’ reply brief responded to all of the rejections in the
Answer.
The Answer is completely silent as to the nonstatutory subject matter
rejection of claims 1 to 8, and the obviousness rejection of claims 5 to 8. If
the nonstatutory subject matter rejection of claims 1 to 8, and the
obviousness rejection of claims 5 to 8 are not still rejections of record, then
the Examiner should state in the record why the two rejections were
withdrawn. Thus, the application is hereby remanded to the Examiner for an
explanation as to what rejections are of record in this appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013