Appeal No. 2001-2692 Page 18
Application No. 08/789,001
upon to cite all references that may be available, but only the 'best.'" M.P.E.P. § 904.03
(8th ed., rev. 1 Feb. 2003) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2002)). "Multiplying
references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others, adds to the
burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided." Id.
Here, the examiner's treatment of Piednoir evidences that the reference is no
better than Modarres or Aubertine. The examiner should avoid such multiplication of
references.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-38 as nonenabled is reversed. The
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-35 as anticipated by Modarres, and the rejection of the
same claims as anticipated by Aubertine, are affirmed. In contrast, the rejection of
claim 3 as anticipated by Modarres, the rejection of the same claim as anticipated by
Aubertine, and the rejection of claims 1-35 as anticipated by Piednoir, are reversed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(a)(2002). Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in
the brief. Any arguments or authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007