Appeal No. 2001-0476
Application No. 08/768,231
fifth reference in "view of" the same aforementioned third
reference "and/or" the same aforementioned fourth reference from
the first rejection.
Upon review of these rejections, we find ourselves faced
with a plethora of permutations regarding how the art should or
"could" be applied to Appellant's claims. Further, the rejection
itself offers us little guidance as to how the particular
references are applied and what would have motivated one of
ordinary skill to make the many possible combinations allotted by
the five references relied upon.
Accordingly, this rejection of record is VACATED and the
application is hereby remanded to the Examiner in accordance with
the above-noted MPEP provision in § 1211, which indicates in part
that in the case of multiple rejections of a cumulative nature,
the Board may remand the application for selection of the
preferred or best ground. We consider the approach taken by the
Examiner, of essentially rejecting the same claims in the
alternative an indeterminate number of times, as not in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007