Appeal No. 96-0254
Application 08/096,149
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s explanation of
the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the rejection, we
make reference to the first Office Action (Paper No. 2, mailed
June 2, 1994), the final rejection (Paper No. 4, mailed November
17, 1994) and the examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 11, mailed April
13, 1995) for the examiner’s reasoning in support thereof.3
Appellant’s arguments thereagainst are found in the brief (Paper
3We note that in the examiner’s answer, the examiner
referred the Board and appellant to the final rejection (Paper
No. 4, mailed November 17, 1994), from which he incorporated the
rejection by reference. However, upon review of the record, the
final rejection itself refers back to the first Office action
(Paper No. 2, mailed June 2, 1994), incorporating the first
Office action by reference. See Paper No. 4, page 2, last
paragraph. The examiner is referred to the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) (6th Ed., Rev. 3, July 1997),
Section 1208, which states:
Examiners may incorporate in the answer their statement
of the grounds of rejection merely by reference to the
final rejection (or a single other action on which it
is based, MPEP § 706.07). Only those statement of
grounds of rejection as appear in a single prior action
may be incorporated by reference. . . . Statements of
grounds of rejection appearing in actions other than
the aforementioned single prior action should be quoted
in the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007