Appeal No. 95-0544
Application No. 07/798,971
claim to be dependent from the specification" (Answer, page
3).
DISCUSSION
This is not a close case.
Having carefully reviewed the record, including
appellants' "Second Brief on Appeal" (Paper No. 19) and the
Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 20), we find that the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs, do not rise to the level of superficial
plausibility. These rejections are reversed for the reasons
succinctly stated in the "Second Brief on Appeal."
In responding to the rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, appellants rely on Ex parte
Moon,
224 USPQ 519 (Bd. App. 1984) (Second Brief on Appeal, pages 12
and 13). The examiner, however, does not even mention
Ex parte Moon in the Answer. This illustrates the egregious
nature of the examiner's prosecution in this application.
The examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007