Appeal 2007-1435
Application 10/408,979
As a final point, we must bring to counsel’s attention the mandates of
37 C.F.R. § 1.3, which reads “[a]pplicants and their attorneys or agents are
required to conduct their business with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office with decorum and courtesy . . .” Manifestly, counsel’s
statement at page 16 of the principal Brief that “it is laziness and
unnecessary obfuscation to refuse to consider that claim [claim 20]” is not in
compliance with the rule. Based on this unfortunate remark, the entirety of
the Brief was susceptible to non-entry. It should be evident that disparaging
remarks by counsel do nothing to advance the cause of an applicant. In our
view, the Examiner has performed a commendable job in analyzing all the
features that are present in a variety of claims and has properly applied the
law in rejecting the claims over the cited prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013