<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Q) 102 and 103 Rejections</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/387/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/387/</link>
	<description>Patent Bar Review and Study Guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 02:34:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: passthepatentbar</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/387/#comment-1268</link>
		<dc:creator>passthepatentbar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 20:42:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=387#comment-1268</guid>
		<description>FROM MPEP 706.02

Prior  art  rejections  should  ordinarily  be  confined strictly to the best available art. Exceptions may prop­erly be made, for example, where:
(A) the propriety of a 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 rejec­tion depends on a particular interpretation of a claim;
(B) a  claim  is  met  only  in  terms  by  a  reference which   does   not   disclose   the   inventive   concept involved; or
(C) the  most  pertinent  reference  seems  likely  to be antedated by a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declara­tion.

Such  rejections  should  be  backed  up  by  the  best other   art   rejections   available.   Merely  cumulative rejections,  i.e.,  those  which  would  clearly  fall  if  the primary   rejection   were   not   sustained,   should   be avoided.

See also MPEP § 707.05.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FROM MPEP 706.02</p>
<p>Prior  art  rejections  should  ordinarily  be  confined strictly to the best available art. Exceptions may prop­erly be made, for example, where:<br />
(A) the propriety of a 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 rejec­tion depends on a particular interpretation of a claim;<br />
(B) a  claim  is  met  only  in  terms  by  a  reference which   does   not   disclose   the   inventive   concept involved; or<br />
(C) the  most  pertinent  reference  seems  likely  to be antedated by a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declara­tion.</p>
<p>Such  rejections  should  be  backed  up  by  the  best other   art   rejections   available.   Merely  cumulative rejections,  i.e.,  those  which  would  clearly  fall  if  the primary   rejection   were   not   sustained,   should   be avoided.</p>
<p>See also MPEP § 707.05.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: patentbar</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/387/#comment-1267</link>
		<dc:creator>patentbar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=387#comment-1267</guid>
		<description>Know that an Examiner can make both 102/103 rejections. When shouldn’t he make both? ANSWER - when cumulative (see 700)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Know that an Examiner can make both 102/103 rejections. When shouldn’t he make both? ANSWER &#8211; when cumulative (see 700)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: patentbar</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/387/#comment-1266</link>
		<dc:creator>patentbar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:36:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=387#comment-1266</guid>
		<description>ANSWER: When cumulative (see 700).  Does anyone have the section or can anyone clarify?  This answer is from the forum.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ANSWER: When cumulative (see 700).  Does anyone have the section or can anyone clarify?  This answer is from the forum.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
