Appeal No. 1995-2698
Application 07/660,807
examiner’s citation of Neal in the first ground of rejection as being “newly cited.”
In relying upon Neal in the new ground of rejection, the examiner does not
characterize Neal as “newly cited.” Furthermore, the examiner’s statement in
regard to both rejections that reliance is placed upon “Applicants [sic]
acknowledgement all of record or newly cited” is not understood. Is the
examiner only relying upon so-called acknowledgements previously referenced
during the examination process or is the examiner is relying upon additional
“acknowledgements” for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer?
There is further confusion in this record as to the references relied upon
by the examiner. The first rejection relies upon a reference to Mitscher et al. As
set forth on page 2 of the Examiner’s Answer, this appears to be yet another
Chemical Abstracts citation. However, there is a copy of the full text Mitscher
article of record. Thus, it is not clear whether the examiner’s consideration of the
issues raised in the rejections has been based upon the abstract or the full text
article.
It is not clear why the examiner did not withdraw the original rejection in
view of the new ground of rejection. Suffice it to say that the examiner did not
accomplish his stated goal of simplifying the issues and expediting prosecution
by making the new ground of rejection.
Response to Reply Brief
Appellant filed a substantive response to the new ground of rejection by
way of the Reply Brief of November 4, 1993 (Paper No. 21). The examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007