Appeal No. 95-5142
Application 08/078,917
contention that "[e]xchange layers are conventional in the art
for capping various magnetoresistive layers, including soft
magnetic layers, and achieving desired noise characteristics,
saturation levels of layers and overall improved head
response" (Answer at 4) will not be considered, because it is
not supported by a citation to a specific part of Hempstead or
to another reference. Such a citation is necessary where, as
here, the allegedly well known subject matter is highly
technical. Compare In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 917, 214 USPQ6
673, 677 (CCPA 1982), which quotes In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d
1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420-21 (CCPA 1970) as follows:
Assertions of technical facts in areas of esoteric
technology must always be supported by citation to some
reference work recognized as standard in the pertinent
art and the appellant given, in the Patent Office, the
opportunity to challenge the correctness of the assertion
or the notoriety or repute of the cited reference. Cf.
In re Cofer, 53 CCPA 830, 354 F.2d 664, 148 USPQ 268
(1966), In re Borst, 52 CCPA 1398, 345 F.2d 851, 145 USPQ
554 (CCPA 1965). Allegations concerning specific
"knowledge" of the prior art, which might be peculiar to
a particular art, should also be supported and the
appellant similarly given the opportunity to make a
6Of course, supporting references should be cited prior
to the Answer unless they are cited in support of a new ground
of rejection given in the Answer.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007