Appeal No. 1997-3911
Application 08/368,758
matter, the examiner continues to find these
references to be relevant evidence of obviousness
(see n. 6, infra), a proper rejection should be
made.
Accord Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 1988); In re Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1304-05 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1993). See also MPEP § 706.02(j) (7th ed., rev.
1, Feb. 2000)) ("Where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, that reference
should be positively included in the statement of the
rejection. See
In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, [1342] n.3, 166 USPQ 406, [407] n.3
(CCPA 1970)."). For the same reason, we will not consider
Heene U.S. Patent No. 4,802,119, which is discussed in the
Examiner's Answer at 5 but not mentioned in either statement
of rejection.
The Answer (at 4) identifies J.M. Rosenberg, Dictionary
of Computers, Information Processing & Telecommunications 94,
239, 292, 301, 327, 382, 394, 613 (2d ed. 1987), as "New Prior
Art."
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007