Appeal No. 96-3407 Application 08/325,549 examiner to reject claims. We exercise no general supervisory power over the examining corps and decisions of primary examiners to require corrections to the drawings are not subject to our review. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002.02(c) and 1201 (6th ed., Rev. 3, Jul. 1997); compare In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967) and In re Deters, 515 F.2d 1152, 1156, 185 USPQ 644, 648 (CCPA 1975). Thus, the relief sought by the appellant would have properly been presented by a petition to the Commissioner under 37 CFR § 1.181. Considering first the rejection of 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention, the answer states that: A few examples are cited below; all claims should be revised carefully to correct other similar deficiencies. For clarity and definiteness, it appears that -- of-- should be inserted after "exterior" (claims 33, line 1)[.] 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007