Appeal No. 2002-0399
Application 09/100,227
As to (2), the examiner appears to find (or impliedly take
Official Notice) that CORBA objects inherently contain
information needed to create the object and to communicate.
"Assertions of technical facts in areas of esoteric technology
must always be supported by citation to some reference work
recognized as standard in the pertinent art . . . ."
In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970);
accord In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 917, 214 USPQ 673, 677 (CCPA
1982). We do not know it to be a fact that CORBA objects contain
"a documentation module containing rules for using the object-
oriented programming component to exchange data between the user
computer and the provider computer." There is no way that we or
our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, can review the correctness of the examiner's factual
finding on the record before us. 2 Accordingly, the examiner has
not provided substantial evidence to support the obviousness
rejection and the rejection of claims 1-25 based on this
reasoning is reversed.
2 Four months after the date of the examiner's answer, the
examiner entered a miscellaneous communication (Paper No. 18,
October 1, 2001, misnumbered as Paper No. 17) citing four CORBA
references. These references are clearly not part of the
rejection and are not considered for purposes of deciding the
rejection on appeal. If the intent of citing these references
was to show, albeit belatedly, that CORBA objects contain a
documentation module, the examiner has made no attempt to point
out such teachings in the individual references.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007