Appeal No. 2000-0226 Page 4
Application No. 08/694,200
Claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art in
view of Gallagher, Le Brun, Knudson, Fox and Reiner.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the
brief for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon
1In the second paragraph of page 5 of the answer, the
examiner for the first time refers to a well known custom.
This well known custom will be given no consideration since it
was not included in the statement of the rejection. See Ex
parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1305 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Additionally, it would be inappropriate to consider this new
piece of evidence since that would constitute a new ground of
rejection and 37 CFR § 1.193(a)(2) provides that an examiner's
answer must not include a new ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007