Appeal No. 95-3870
Application 07/993,551
responsibility to fully and fairly evaluate evidence of nonobviousness and notify appellants
of any reasons why such evidence is insufficient. Appellants then would have an
opportunity to respond and submit further evidence if needed. This did not occur here.
Subsequently, the case forwarded to the Board by the examiner is not amendable to a
meaningful review. What is needed is a fact-based explanation from the examiner
explaining why the proffered evidence of nonobviousness is insufficient.
Since the examiner did not do so on this record, the rejection cannot be sustained.The
decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
DOUGLAS W. ROBINSON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
HUBERT C. LORIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Viskase Corporation
Patent & Trademark Department
6855 West 65th Street
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007