Appeal No. 1998-2910
Application No. 08/500,282
appellant.
Appellant initially contends that the rejection is
improper on its face because "the Examiner is relying on Kumar
et al., in view of Kumar, and not on each reference
individually as stated in the rejection. Further, it is noted
that there is zero mention of 'Fincher et al.' in the body of
the rejection, and thus it appears that this reference is not
being relied upon" [brief-page 8]. We do not find this
argument to be persuasive as the statement of the rejection
makes it clear that the examiner is relying on Kumar 200,
Kumar 193 and Fincher, i.e., the combination of all the
references taken together, and not on the references
individually. Thus, we do not agree with appellant that the
rejection states that the references are relied upon
individually. Further, insofar as Fincher not being mentioned
in the body of the rejection, as set forth in the final
rejection, while the examiner may have inadvertently omitted
Fincher therein, Fincher was clearly part of the statement of
the rejection and the examiner explained the applicability of
Fincher in the answer, giving appellant ample opportunity, in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007