Appeal 2007-2005
Application 10/066,110
1
2 REMARKS
3 We note that the Examiner has recognized that claim 31 is written in improper
4 form because it refers to claim 30, which is cancelled. The Examiner has chosen to
5 object to this as an obvious typographical error, rather than rejecting the claim
6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The Examiner concluded that claim 31 is meant to refer to
7 claim 23, which is the claim that cancelled claim 30 referred to. (Answer 6). We
8 agree that this is an obvious error and remind the Appellant that correction will be
9 required in any further prosecution.
10
11 DECISION
12 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
13 • The rejection of claims 15-18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
14 anticipated by Yoshida is sustained.
15 • The rejection of claims 23, 24, 28, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
16 obvious over Yoshida is sustained.
17 • The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yoshida
18 and Perkins is sustained.
19 • The rejection of claims 19, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
20 over Yoshida and Rosenberg is sustained.
21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
22 may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
23 AFFIRMED
24
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013