Appeal No. 1998-0889
Application 08/006,585
smudge resistant ink, means for delivering ink, and means for
holding the plastic card on a plotting mechanism for printing
information on a plastic card since it was known in the art
that the use of smudge resistant [ink] is [sic, was] widely
use[d] to prevent smudging when writing information on a
substrate, means for delivering ink on a plotting mechanism is
an essential part of a plotter [] to enable the delivery of ink
to the printing area, means for holding the plastic card is a
crucial component to prevent movement of the plastic card while
information is being printed.
Appellants argue that Official Notice is only proper as to
"facts," and that the Examiner misuses Official Notice. It is argued
that it is not proper to take Official Notice of the motivation to
combine or the equivalence of the printer in Hakamatsuka and the
plotter of Otsuka (Br10-12) and that it is improper to use Official
Notice for conclusions of law (Br12-13). It is further argued
(Br14-15) that the Examiner relies on Official Notice as the
"principal evidence" upon which the rejection is based, which is
contrary to In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420-21
(CCPA 1970).
"Assertions of technical facts in areas of esoteric technology
must always be supported by citation to some reference work
recognized as standard in the pertinent art." See Id. at 1091, 165
USPQ at 420; accord In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 917, 214 USPQ 673, 677
(CCPA 1982). See also In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370,
178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1973) (court will not take judicial notice of
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007