Appeal 2007-0288
Application 10/715,408
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 6-131 stand anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by
Chrabaszcz.
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chrabaszcz in view of Rollins.
We note that Appellants and the Examiner provide a majority of their
contentions and arguments regarding the objection to the Specification
concerning new matter added to the instant claims. Most of Appellants
arguments are with respect to the written description requirement under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, but we note that the Examiner has never set
forth a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We cannot address
the objection to the Specification since this is beyond our jurisdiction, but
our review of the instant prosecution leads us to the reasoned conclusion that
the instant claim language lacks support in the original Specification and in
the material incorporated by reference into the Specification.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Dec. 5, 2005) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections of record, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Aug.
1 We find that the Examiner did not specifically mention that independent1
claims 12 and 13 were included in the statement of the rejections under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, but the cover sheet of the Final indicated these
claims were rejected and these claims are similar to the other independent
claims. Therefore, we interpret this as a typographical oversight and treat
these claims with the other independent claims. Appellant appears to have
also interpreted the Final Rejection in that manner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013