Appeal No. 95-4823
Application 07/856,012
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Kastner, Embase Abstract of Klin, MBL, Augeheilk (Germany West), (Embase Abstract)
165, pages 946-47, 19742
J.A. Pino Capote (Pino Capote), British Journal of Anesthesia, Vol. 50, No. 8,
page 865 (1978)
Claims 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Kastner and Pino Capote. We
reverse.
Discussion
Simply put, we reverse the rejection in view of the numerous procedural and
substantive errors committed by the examiner on appeal. By statute, this board serves as
a board of review, not a de novo examination tribunal. 35 U.S.C. § 7(b) ("The [board] shall
. . . review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents . . .."). Here, we
have little of substance to review. We will discuss some of the more serious errors.
1. Separate argument of claims.
On pages 3-4 of the Appeal Brief, appellants make clear that the claims do not
stand or fall together for the purposes of this appeal, setting forth three groups of claims:
Group 1 consisting of claims 11, 12, and 21; Group 2 consisting of claims 14 and 22; and
2We have obtained a full text translation of the German language document which
is the subject of this abstract. A copy of the translation is attached to this opinion.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007