Appeal No. 2006-1216 Παγε 2
Application No. 10/623,674
In the answer mailed September 07, 2005, the Examiner lists
two publications in item No. 8 as comprising the evidence being
relied upon in rejecting appellants’ appealed claims. In item
No. 9 of that answer, the examiner states:
The following ground(s) of rejection are
applicable to the appealed claims:
Claims 1-12, 15-18, 20-22 and 24-30 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). This rejection is fully set
forth in prior Office action, Paper No. 22005.
That statement of rejection is clearly inadequate in that
the examiner does not furnish the requisite full explanation of
the rejection(s) being relied upon in the answer itself. Here,
the examiner has referred to a prior office action in the answer
“without fully restating the point relied on in the answer,” as
is required. See the first full sentence on page 1200-28 of
Section 1207.02 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure
(MPEP), 8th ed., Rev. 3, Aug. 2004. As the above-noted Section
of the MPEP makes clear, the examiner should fully set forth and
explain each rejection maintained by the examiner in the answer.
A reference to another Paper, especially using an incorrect
paper number, is no substitute for the explanation required in
the answer itself.
Here, a review of the final rejection mailed February 09,
2005 (presumably the Paper No. 22005 that the examiner refers to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007