Ex Parte VAN DYKE - Page 3

                 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                       
                        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                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007