Ex parte TANAKA et al. - Page 5




               Appeal No. 1996-1626                                                                                               
               Application No. 07/642,848                                                                                         


               the “dye” and the “substrate of an optical disk” are claimed separately.Appellants refer (Brief, pages                

               6-7) to “the Declaration Pursuant to 37 CFR §1.132" as support for the argument that the artisan                   

               would not have interpreted the reference as suggesting an optical disk having a fluorescent dye.                   

               Appellants filed a declaration on July 25, 1994 (Paper No. 22) setting forth the opinion of the co-                

               inventors of the instant application.  On pages 2 through 13 of the declaration, appellants submit a               

               reasonable case in support of their position, based on objective facts in the reference and allegations            

               concerning what the artisan would have known.  The examiner bears initial responsibility for determining           

               whether affidavits or declarations submitted under 37 CFR § 1.132 are responsive to a rejection and                

               present sufficient facts to overcome the rejection.  See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 716,               

               Seventh Edition.  However, the examiner does not appear to respond to the substance of the                         
               declaration in any of the Final Rejection, Answer, or two supplemental Answers.   2                                

                      In the examiner’s responses to appellants’ arguments, it appears that the examiner bases the                

               opinion that the reference would have suggested an optical disk having a fluorescent dye principally on            

               the reference’s statement that the disclosed “resin molded body” can be used for optical parts such as a           

               transparent substrate of an optical disk, and that the reference’s Claim 10 is directed to a “resin molded         



                      2 In the Final Rejection, page 2, the examiner refers to an unexecuted paper filed November 29, 1993        
               and states that the declaration has not been considered because it is not signed by the inventors.  There is no    
               indication from the examiner that the declaration filed July 25, 1994 was considered untimely and thus not         
               considered.  To the contrary, the examiner states at the top of page 2 of the Answer that the amendment after      
               final filed on July 25, 1994 has been entered.                                                                     
                                                              - 5 -                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007