Appeal 2007-2236
Application 10/991,738
1 1. Specification, including original claims.
2 2. Drawings.
3 3. The Supplemental Appeal Brief filed 28 August 2006.
4 4. The Examiner’s Answer entered 17 November 2006.
5 5. The Reply Brief failed 22 January 2007.
6 6. Kobayashi.
7 7. Mizuta.
8 8. Gupta.
9 9. PTO bibliographic data sheet for the application on appeal.
10 10. Claims 89-96 on appeal.
11 11. Publication 2006/0051600 (09 Mar. 2006) (specification of
12 application on appeal.
13
14 C. Issues
15 As the appeal reached the Board, there are two principal issues.
16 The first issue was whether Rupich has sustained its burden of
17 showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims 89-91 on appeal as
18 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gupta and Mizuta.
19 The second issue was whether Rupich has sustained its burden of
20 showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims 92-96 on appeal as
21 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gupta, Mizuta and
22 Kobayashi.
23 We do not reach the two issues because we find the claims to be
24 indefinite and we also find the enabling disclosure not to be commensurate
25 in scope with what we think Rupert regards as its invention.
26
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013