What do you say when an Examiner gives a 102(b) rejection but then cites to different devices/methods within that reference that are unrelated to teach the various limitations of the claims.

For example, the Examiner cites to the actual "invention" of a reference for many limitations, but then cites to the background, where the reference discloses prior art that it teaches away from, for another limitation. Clearly that prior art is not a part of the "invention" of the reference, but technically it is only one reference and hence the Examiner feels that a 102 is warranted.

The best I have been able to find in the MPEP is section 2131, stating that the elements in the reference must be arranged as required by the claim and that "the identical invention" must be shown. Is there anything better than that? There has to be clear case law on this issue...........

mpep is the right reference. I don't know of a better reference

thanks for the reply. I talked to another colleage and they concurred with us. I'll let you know how it turns out.