Appeal No. 2000-0426
Application No. 08/427,447
documented on the record, lest the “haze of so-called
expertise” acquire insulation from accountability.
Clearly, Lee reiterates that a reasoned conclusion by the examiner
must be supported by some evidence in the administrative record.
Here, we find that the examiner has satisfied the requirement
for the official notice by offering evidence of the Kersten
reference which was available to appellant during the prosecution.
Appellant did not, and does not challenge the efficacy of this
evidence to support the use of the official notice. Therefore, we
find that Joselowitz make obvious claim 2 and the corresponding
method claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, we are of the view, after considering
the explanation of the rejection of claim 7 (answer page 4 and the
examiner’s response at page 6), we agree with appellant that the
examiner has not met the limitation recited in claim 7, “powering
said transcieving device by rectifying and storing energy in the
form of radio frequency transmissions received from said
controller.” In our view, the examiner has not grappled with the
limitation that the recited transmitting device can run on energy
which is converted from the radio frequency transmissions received
from the controller instead of running on a battery. Therefore, we
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007