Appeal No. 1999-1206 Page 12
Application No. 08/394,608
describes or suggests the magenta precipitate-forming substrates required by many of
the claims. Rather than actually addressing appellants= very relevant criticism of the
rejection, the examiner=s response (Examiner=s Answer, page 4) is nothing more than
boilerplate:
Appellant=s arguments have been fully considered but they are not
deemed persuasive. The rejection is maintained for the reasons set forth
in the previous office action. A prima facie case of obviousness has been
set forth as it appears that the substartes [sic] used are if [sic] fact not
novel or unobvious in view of the cited references.
Turning to the previous office action (final rejection, paper no. 7), for the Areasons,@ we
find only the same boilerplate paragraph. Needless to say, this treatment of appellants=
arguments is manifestly improper.
REVERSED
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Toni R. Scheiner ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Demetra J. Mills )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007