<?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: Examples Of How To Respond To Takings Of Official Notice &#8211; Part II</title>
	<atom:link href="http://patentablydefined.com/2008/12/23/examples-of-how-to-respond-to-takings-of-official-notice-part-ii/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://patentablydefined.com/2008/12/23/examples-of-how-to-respond-to-takings-of-official-notice-part-ii/</link>
	<description>A practical patent prosecution blog published by Michael Kondoudis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:07:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matsushita</title>
		<link>http://patentablydefined.com/2008/12/23/examples-of-how-to-respond-to-takings-of-official-notice-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4783</link>
		<dc:creator>Matsushita</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 07:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patentablydefined.com/?p=66#comment-4783</guid>
		<description>Thank you for your thoughtful examples in responding to Office Action in which the Examiner takes official notice of facts in attempt to reject claims under §103.  These examples are quite beneficial to deepen my understanding of the basic principles and Examiner’s burdens with respect to official notice.  As indicated by you, even if the Examiner does not use explicitly the term “official notice” but merely mentions “routine skill in the art” for example in Office Action, I believe that I have to timely traverse the Examiner’s assertion on the assumption that official notice appears to be taken as “the routine skill in the art”.  Otherwise, these facts might be regarded as being admitted prior arts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your thoughtful examples in responding to Office Action in which the Examiner takes official notice of facts in attempt to reject claims under §103.  These examples are quite beneficial to deepen my understanding of the basic principles and Examiner’s burdens with respect to official notice.  As indicated by you, even if the Examiner does not use explicitly the term “official notice” but merely mentions “routine skill in the art” for example in Office Action, I believe that I have to timely traverse the Examiner’s assertion on the assumption that official notice appears to be taken as “the routine skill in the art”.  Otherwise, these facts might be regarded as being admitted prior arts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
