Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
record whatever evidence he has which supports his position regarding the
unpatentability of claim 35.13 This request for a § 104(d)(2) affidavit or declaration by
the examiner is clearly inappropriate because the examiner is relying not on personal
knowledge but on the general knowledge of persons having ordinary skill in the banking
art that it was standard practice to provide security for deposit accounts. This assertion
of general knowledge is specific enough to satisfy Lee’s requirement that general
knowledge, when relied on to negate patentability, “must be articulated and placed on
the record.” 277 F.3d at 1345, 61 USPQ2d at 1435.
The rejection of claim 35 is therefore affirmed.
Independent claim 36 reads as follows:14
36. A system for managing deposit and loan accounts, comprising:
specific as possible, and the reference must be supported, when called for
by the applicant, by the affidavit of such employee, and such affidavit shall
be subject to contradiction or explanation by the affidavits of the applicant
and other persons.
13 This request appeared in the “Response to Office Action Dated July 25,
2001," at 6.
14 Claim 36 is incorrectly reproduced in Appendix I to the brief, which fails to
include the change made by the Certificate of Correction, dated September 26, 2000.
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007