Appeal No. 2000-0863 Page 3
Application No. 08/760,303
Claims 1 to 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Osaki in view of Mino and Official
Notice.4
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed October 14, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11,
filed July 7, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed
December 31, 1998) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
4Procedurally, when a reference is relied on to support a
rejection even in a "minor capacity," ordinarily that
reference should be positively included in the statement of
rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406,
407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). The examiner relies on Official Notice
in the body of the rejection, and accordingly, Official Notice
should have been positively included in the statement of
rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007