Appeal No. 95-2405
Application No. 07/969,663
35 U.S.C. ' 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites
Stevenson and Roeser with regard to claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9,
adding Kokubu to this combination with regard to claim 4.2
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in the answers, the examiner
refers back to a previous office action, paper number 7, for an
explanation of the rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9.
However, when reference is made to that previous office action,
that action refers us back further to paper number 5 for an
explanation of the rejection. This is improper under Manual of
Patent Examining Procedures ' 1208 (6th ed., rev. 3, July 1997)
which provides for incorporation by reference to only “a single
prior action.” Violations of this rule in the future may result
in the application being remanded to the examiner for compliance
with the rule.
We now turn to the rejection of independent claim 8.
The examiner’s rationale for the rejection of claim 8 is
that Stevenson discloses a pivot/push switch as claimed
but for the rocker being pivotally mounted to a collar. However,
the examiner cites Roeser for the teaching of a switch wherein
2 The rejection of claim 4 based on the Stevenson, Roeser and
Kokubu references is a new ground of rejection presented for the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007