Appeal No. 2001-1926
Application 08/777,722
answer except when certain references have been disfavorably made
to the claims in Bales itself.
The examiner has also extensively quoted at pages 34-38 of
the answer unidentified portions from a patent incorporated by
reference within Bales and discussed at columns 10 and 11. This
approach is problematic in the context of a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102 since it appears like the examiner is intending
to actually base the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relying
upon more than one reference. The same can be said of the
examiner's quotation from another identified reference at page 43
of the answer which is in the context of the responsive arguments
portion of the answer. Two other references are also noted there
as well.
The thrust of the reasoning is that the examiner is
attempting to prove that a switchover operation, such as what is
characterized in Bales, amounts to a handoff operation. The
examiner may be correct in the assessment and reliance upon
still additional prior art references at pages 41 and 42 of the
answer as to the characterization that there exists in the art
many types of handoffs. Within a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, which is before us, the examiner's reliance must primarily
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007