Appeal 2007-1762
Application 10/218,245
Dependent claims 36-38
Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 35 as being anticipated by Togawa, we will also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 as being unpatentable over Togawa, as
claim 36 depends from claim 35. We have pro forma reversed the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 37 and 38 as improper, as discussed supra in
Footnote 2.
Dependent claims 41-43
Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 40 as being anticipated by Togawa, we will also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 as being unpatentable over Togawa, as
claim 41 depends from claim 40. We have pro forma reversed the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 42 and 43 as improper, as discussed supra in
Footnote 2.
Claims 44 and 45
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 44 and 45 as
being anticipated by Bilbrey.
In rejecting independent claim 44, the Examiner cites to several
paragraphs of Bilbrey between paragraphs 92 and 103 (Answer 5-6).
However, as noted by Appellants, the limitations addressed by the Examiner
in the rejection of claim 44 are actually from previously cancelled claim 11,
which was not commensurate in scope with currently presented claim 44
(Br. 25-26).
Because the Examiner has failed to properly map each limitation
found in these claims to the corresponding portion of the Bilbrey reference,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013