Appeal No. 2001-0553
Application 09/218,910
No. 7) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 10, mailed October
18, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 9, filed
September 22, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed
December 27, 2000) for the arguments thereagainst.1
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
1The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208
(page 1200-17) states that examiners may incorporate in the
answer their statement of the grounds of rejection merely by
reference to the final rejection (or a single other action on
which it is based, MPEP § 706.07). Only those statements of
grounds of rejection appearing in a single prior action may be
incorporated by reference. An examiner’s answer should not
refer, either directly or indirectly, to more than one prior
Office action. In this case, the examiner has not followed the
sage advice and guidance provided by the MPEP. The examiner’s
answer refers us to Paper No. 7 (the final rejection),
however, Paper No. 7 itself refers back to “paragraph 4 of the
last office action.” In the future, to avoid any confusion,
the examiner should adhere to the precepts set forth in the
MPEP.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007