Appeal No. 1996-1992
Application 07/898,373
tribunal. 35 U.S.C. §7(b) (“The [Board] shall, on written appeal of an applicant, review
adverse decisions of examiner’s upon application for patents...”). It is the examiner’s initial
responsibility to fully and fairly evaluate evidence of nonobviousness and notify appellants
of the reasons why such evidence is insufficient. Appellants then would have an
opportunity to respond and submit further evidence if needed. Since the examiner did not
do so, the case forwarded to this Board by the examiner is not amenable to review. What
is needed is a fact-based explanation from the examiner setting forth in detail why the
proffered evidence of nonobviousness is insufficient. Since the examiner did not do so,
the rejection cannot be sustained.
The decision 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 )
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007