Ex Parte TAKEUCHI et al - Page 4




                   Appeal No. 2006-1820                                                                                                                           
                   Application No. 08/889,440                                                                                                                     

                   14-18, are really unnecessary and immaterial and merely serve to obfuscate, rather than clarify                                                
                   the issues before us.  The examiner may rest assured that we make our decisions on the evidence                                                
                   before us, and not on any perceived attitudes of the parties involved; that we will consider the                                               
                   “version” of a reference that the examiner bases the rejection on; and that we are well aware of                                               
                   the law relating to a prima facie case and 35 U.S.C. § 103.  The answer would better serve us if                                               
                   the examiner got right to the point, succinctly stating the grounds of rejection, the rationale                                                
                   therefore, particularly identifying specific portions of the prior art alleged to teach specific claim                                         
                   limitations, particularly specifying what about the claims is indefinite with a full explanation as                                            
                   to why it is deemed indefinite in rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and                                                      
                   particularly specifying what about the claims is non-enabling or without proper written                                                        
                   description, in rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.                                                                             
                            Moreover, in rejections based on prior art, it would be most helpful if the examiner                                                  
                   would limit his/her rejections to what is considered the most relevant, and best, art available to                                             
                   make the point alleged.  For example, in rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, 22-26, and 28-31, under                                               
                   one of the plurality of rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bases the rejection on                                               
                   any one of four individual references, each one in view of either one of three additional                                                      
                   references, which constitutes, in reality, twelve different rejections of the same claims.  This is in                                         
                   addition to the other three different rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, and 22-31 under 35 U.S.C.                                            
                   § 103, and the additional two other rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, and 22-31 under 35 U.S.C.                                              
                   § 103.  One must question whether there might be one or two strongest rejections, based on the                                                 
                   prior art, which the examiner could have made in lieu of the seventeen different rejections made                                               

                                                                                4                                                                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007