Ex Parte ALFERNESS et al - Page 17




              Appeal No. 2002-1395                                                                   Page 17                  
              Application No. 08/789,702                                                                                      


              38, which depend therefrom; of claim 39; and of claims 40-51, which depend therefrom.                           


                      "The PTO Rules of Practice require the examiner to cite only what he considers                          
              the 'best references.'"  E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co., 620 F.2d 1247,                          
              620 F.2d 1247, 1266-67, 205 USPQ 1, 16 (8th Cir. 1980).  "The examiner is not called                            
              upon to cite all references that may be available, but only the 'best.'" M.P.E.P. § 904.03                      
              (8th ed., rev. 1 Feb. 2003) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2002)).  "Multiplying                                 
              references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others, adds to the                         
              burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided."  Id.                                           


                      Here, the examiner's treatment of Rostoker and Van Dyke evidences that the                              
              references are no better than Kirsch.  The examiner should avoid such multiplication of                         
              references.                                                                                                     


                                                      CONCLUSION                                                              
                      In summary, the rejection of claims 1-12, 16-47, and 51 under  § 112, ¶ 2, is                           
              reversed, while the rejection of claims 13-15 and 48-50 under  § 112, ¶ 2, is affirmed.                         
              The rejection of claims 1-29 and 32-51 under § 102(e) is affirmed, while the rejection of                       
              claims 30 and 31 under § 102(e) is reversed.  The rejection of claims 1-51 under                                
              § 103(a) is also reversed.                                                                                      








Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007