Appeal No. 2002-0439
Application No. 09/391,384
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Weiss et al (Weiss) 5,719,319 Feb. 17, 1998
Takahashi et al (Takahashi) JP 04040288 A2 Feb. 10, 1992
(Abstract only)
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for obviousness over Weiss in
view of Takahashi.1
We reverse this rejection.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s
Answer for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’
Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we
1 We note that neither the examiner nor appellants have provided a full text
translation of Takahashi. Citation of and reliance upon an abstract without citation of
and reliance upon the underlying scientific document is generally inappropriate where
both the abstract and the underlying document are prior art. See Ex parte Jones, 62
USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Bd Pat. App. & Inter. 2001) (unpublished); MPEP 706.02 and
April 29, 2002 internal policy Memo of Kunin. While we could remand this application to
permit the examiner and/or appellants to obtain a copy and translation, we choose to
consider this rejection on the merits as it comes to us. Finding no prejudice to
appellants, we render our decision based upon the abstract only. Note, Brief, page 4.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007