Appeal 2007-0850
Application 10/733,292
ordinary skill would have reasonably concluded that Piplani discloses all of
the limitations in claim 12.
To summarize, we agree with the Examiner that Piplani anticipates
claims 12-16, 19, 20, 22, and 24-36, and renders claims 17, 18, 21, and 23
obvious when viewed with Kornberg. However, because we base these
conclusions on a rationale different from that applied by the Examiner, we
designate these as new grounds of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
SUMMARY
We reverse the anticipation and obviousness rejections over Cragg.
We vacate the Examiner’s rejections using the Piplani reference, and enter
new anticipation and obviousness rejections based on that reference.
Time Period for Response
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 . . . .
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013