Ex Parte 5253341 et al - Page 21




               Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742                                                                                   
               Patent 5,253,341                                                                                                       

          1                                                                                                                           
          2                    •  Claims 93, 94, 96, 97 under § 103(a) over Cohen in view of                                          
          3            Bridges and further in view of Punj.  3d Action at 92, para. 28; Final                                         
          4            Action at 248, para. 28; Answer at 16 (no para. no.).                                                          
          5                                                                                                                           
          6    J.  General observations regarding the evidence                                                                        
          7            The above-identified patents and publications are the only references identified in the                        
          8    statements of the rejections.  Patents and publications which are not identified in the statements                     
          9    of the rejections but are mentioned in the examiner's discussion of the rejections or Dr.                              
         10    Koopman's testimony have not been considered.  See MPEP § 706.02(j) (8th ed., rev. 5, Oct.                             
         11    2006) ("Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity,                     
         12    that reference should be positively included in the statement of the rejection.   See In re Hoch,                      
         13    428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970)").           Accord Ex parte Movva,                         
         14    31 USPQ2d 1027, 1028 n.1 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).                                                                  
         15            The examiner's assertions of technical facts are being given weight only to the extent they                    
         16    are supported by the cited references.  See In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 917, 214 USPQ 673, 677                          
         17    (CCPA 1982) ("Assertions of technical facts in areas of esoteric technology must always be                             
         18    supported by citation to some reference work recognized as standard in the pertinent art and the                       
         19    appellant given, in the Patent Office, the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the assertion                   
         20    or the notoriety or repute of the cited reference.") (quoting In re Ahlert, 57 CCPA 1023, 1027,                        
         21    424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420-21 (1970)).  However, the examiner’s asserted                                   
         22    motivation for combining the reference teachings need not appear in the references themselves:                         
         23            [A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion                                          
         24            may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the                                                     
         25            “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of                                                 
                                                            - 21 -                                                                    





Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007