Appeal No. 1996-1581
Application No. 08/149,815
In the face of appellants' showing of unexpected results, the examiner responds
"Appellant has not provided any unexpected results that occur due to the claimed
thicknesses, but has only offered general allegations of reduced cell defects and noise
reduction." (page 9 of answer). When appellants pointed out in their reply brief that their
principal brief argued the significance and unexpected nature of the comparative
1
specification data, the examiner merely responded that the reply brief "has been entered
and considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary." (paper
no. 23).
Manifestly, it is incumbent upon the examiner to offer a critical analysis of evidence
of non-obviousness presented by appellants. See In re Margolis 785 F2d 1029, 1031,
228 USPQ 940, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Pines v. McAllister 188 F.2d 388, 390, 89
USPQ 312, 314 (CCPA 1951). In the present case, the examiner's failure to critically
asses the probative value of appellants' specification data constitutes reversible error.
1 See page 3 of the reply brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007