Appeal No. 1996-3787
Application No. 07/607,870
The decision of the examiner is reversed. 2
As a final point, we note that appellants describe some
of the drawings as “prior art” at page 4 of the specification.
Upon return of this application, both the examiner and
appellants are advised to designate those drawings by a legend
such as “Prior Art”. MPEP § 608.02(g) (7th ed. July 1998).
REVERSED
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
2According to 37 CFR § 1.106 (c) (1994), “[i]n rejecting
claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner
must cite the best references at his command. When a
reference. . . . shows or describes inventions other than that
claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must
be designated as nearly as practicable (emphasis added).”
However, the examiner has not referred to any particular part
of the applied prior art, which he relied on to support his
rejection. Although we could have remanded the application to
the examiner on this basis, we have declined to do so since we
disagree with the examiner on the merits of the § 103
rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007