Appeal 2007-0714
Application 10/651,354
claims 18, 29, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Timmons; and claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Timmons.
As Appellants merely reiterate their arguments as to the rejection of
claims 1, 6, 10, 12, 17, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Timmons (Br. 10), the rejection of these claims is
affirmed for the reasons set forth above.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we find that Timmons anticipates, either alone or in
combination with the other cited reference, renders obvious the subject
matter of the claims on appeal, i.e., claims 1, 6-12, 17, 18, 20, 26, 27, and
29-35. Because our reasoning differs from that of the Examiner, we
designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the Examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013