Appeal No. 1998-2639
Application 08/425,735
The sole rejection before us is stated in the most recent final Office action mailed
1
March 15, 2000, the pertinent portions of which reads as follows:
2. ... The rejection is based on an actual pool cue in the possession of
the examiner in his office. Further, as a matter of formality in line with
37 CFR 1.104(d)(2) examiner has submitted an affidavit as to the date
of purchase of this cue.
3. Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by a Pool Cue[sic].
The reference to a Pool Cue[sic] is a physical pool cue which
can be viewed by applicant in the office of the examiner of record.
An affidavit of [sic, concerning] this Pool Cue[sic] is included with
this action.
The undated “affidavit” (actually a declaration) which is attached to the final Office
action mailed March 15, 2000, states that the examiner has in his possession a pool cue
having certain physical attributes. The pool cue, the examiner says, “was purchased in the
fall of 1994.” The examiner’s § 102(b) rejection is apparently predicated on showing the
pool cue in his possession to be identical to the one claimed by Neil.2
1 Final Office actions were earlier entered on February 26, 1996, and April 24,
1996.
2 In a per curiam decision rendered January 11, 2000, we remanded jurisdiction of
this application to the patent examiner to, among other things, make clear the manner in
which an updated document described by the examiner’s as “Photocopy 1 and 2 of a Pool
Cue purchased by examiner in the fall of 1994" (answer mailed November 26, 1996, page
3) qualifies as a prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). It is evident that the
examiner is no longer relying on the “Photocopy 1 and 2 of a Pool Cue” as a reference
under § 102(b).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007