Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
2131.01 for basing a § 102 rejection on multiple references.15 This argument fails for
lack of an explanation of which subject matter in which document is being relied on to
prove that the same subject matter is necessarily present in another document. To the
extent the examiner is contending that the RailMill documents as a group show all of the
features that were inherent in a RailMill product that was publicly known or used prior to
appellant’s filing date, the argument fails because, as already noted, a rejection in a
reexamination proceeding cannot properly be based on the public knowledge or use
provisions of § 102(a) .
For the foregoing reasons, we will treat the § 102(a) rejection which is based on
the RailMill documents as being based on those documents in the alternative.
Our analysis of the publication dates of the RailMill documents is as follows.
1. RailMill PB
15 The other reasons are to prove that the primary reference contains an enabled
disclosure and to explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference. MPEP
§ 2131.01.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007