Appeal No. 95-1308
Application 07/999,502
rejection with Squires. Cf. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-3, 190 USPQ 425, 426 (CCPA 1976)
(whether Board entered new ground of rejection). A rejection must mention the references relied on.
In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970) ("Where a reference
is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a 'minor capacity,' there would appear to be no
excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection."). In any case, since
we find an external port, it is not necessary to consider Squires.
The statement of the rejections in the Examiner's Answer uses the wrong claim numbers in
the rejections. For example, the Examiner's Answer recites a rejection for cancelled claim 2
(Examiner's Answer, page 4), which is apparently intended to refer to claim 11, and cancelled claim 8
(Examiner's Answer, page 7), which is apparently intended to refer to claim 12. We believe the
intended rejections are accurately summarized by appellants (Brief, page 4) as follows:
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coale, Chang,
Kaida, Smith, Fukushima, and Gaudet. The reasons are stated in the Examiner's Answer, pages 4-6,
referring to claim 2.
Claims 3-5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coale,
Chang, Kaida, Smith, Fukushima, Gaudet as applied in the rejection of claim 11 further in view of
Sein-o. The reasons are stated in the Examiner's Answer, pages 7-10, where the rejection of claim
8, pages 7-9, is apparently meant to refer to claim 12.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007