channel” has been found during the prosecution of other related applications
to be distinguishable over Tyler (Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2). Appellant urges this
panel to reverse the Examiner’s rejection based on previously prosecuted
applications and the resulting grant of U.S. Patents (id.).
Appellant is reminded that our decision is limited to the appealed
claims that are before this panel. In other words, Appellant’s reference to
the related applications that were issued as U.S. Patents has no bearing on
the merits of this appeal. This is not the same as rejecting previously
allowed claims, see MPEP 706.04 (8th edition, Rev. 3, August 2005), or
“casting doubts” over the previously granted patents since the instant claims
before us have not been allowed by the Examiner. The similarities between
these claims and those of the issued patents notwithstanding, our decision is
independent of and will not directly affect the other applications since this
panel has no jurisdiction over the issued patents.
If the decision of this appeal causes any conflicting results, Appellant
is reminded that other remedies such as reissue and reexamination are more
appropriate and available to resolve the inconsistencies.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the
Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims or the rejection is not supported
by a legally sufficient basis for holding that Tyler anticipated the claimed
subject matter. In view of our analysis above, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 rejection of claims 15 and 17-19 over Tyler, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 20 over Tyler and of claim 16 over Tyler and Paolini.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013