2120 Prior Art‎ > ‎

not in mpep

PRIOR ART - cases cited in BPAI decisions that are not in MPEP
 
FRACALOSSI

Further, it is also necessary for the Examiner to properly construe what an applied reference fairly teaches or discloses. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi and Wajer, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982).
 
NOMIYA
 
RIVERWOOD
 
A statement by an applicant during prosecution identifying certain matter not the work of the same inventor as “prior art” is an admission that the matter is prior art. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co. , 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Such an admission can be relied on as support for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71 (CCPA 1975) (“We see no reason why appellants’ representations in their application should not be accepted at face value as admissions that Figs. 1 and 2 may be considered ‘prior art’ for any purpose, including use as evidence of obviousness under § 103.”).
Comments