[Patentpractice] Non-urgent curious question about examiner's statement

[Leigh T]

Yes, I think that is what the examiner means. It's just bad grammar,
which we also see with some of our examiners.

Best regards,
Leigh

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 4:32 PM Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> I have a final office action with a 103 rejection over prior art reference
> D1.
>
>
>
> In comments on our earlier arguments, the examiner says:
>
>
>
> “D1 is *obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject
> matter*.”
>
>
>
> He then proceeds to lay out a 103 rejection.
>
>
>
> I don’t recall seeing this phrase (“*obvious suggestively, if not
> anticipatory”)* before.
>
>
>
> Is this just another way of saying: “notwithstanding that the claimed
> invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 …”?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241214/975166cd/attachment.html>