Appeal 2007-0694
Reexamination Control 90/006,433
Patent 5,428,933
Similarly, Patentee has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 29 as obvious over Guarriello and Horobin ‘382. We
AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 12, 20 and 29.
Patentee has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-11, 13-19, 21-28 and 30 as anticipated by Guarriello. We REVERSE the
Examiner’s final rejection of these claims as anticipated.
We find that claims 1-11, 13-19, 21-28 and 30 do no more than
combine known elements for their known purpose to yield predictable
results. Based upon the facts presented, new grounds of rejection are
entered as to claims 1-11, 13-19, 21-28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Patentee has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
30 as indefinite. We REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claim 30
as indefinite.
As we have already determined that claim 30 is unpatentable based
upon prior art, the Examiner’s final rejection of claim 30 as unpatentable for
lack of enablement is MOOT.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b) (2006). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
ORDERED that since our rationale differs from the rationale of the
examiner, our affirmance is designated as a new rejection. 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b) (2006).
FURTHER ORDERED that our decision is not a final agency action.
50
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013