Appeal 2007-1448
Application 10/601,325
In the event of further prosecution, Appellants are free to argue independent
patentability of the dependent claims, but nothing in this opinion precludes the
Examiner from rejecting any other claim in this case in response to such
arguments.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The decision of the Examiner to reject the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over prior art is affirmed.
Since we use Wisniewski instead of Misono, we designate our affirmance as
a new rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2006).
On the record before us, the Appellants are not entitled to a patent claiming
rejected claims 1-7, and 11-13 on appeal.
Our decision is not a final agency action.
Bd. R. 41.50(b) [37 CFR § 41.50 (b) 2006)] provides that the appellants,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must
exercise one of the following two options with respect to a new ground of
rejection:
(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 . . . .
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013