Appeal No. 1998-2497
Application No. 08/472,275
OPINION
At the outset, we note that appellant requests “rejoinder
of claims 12-14...” [principal brief-page 26]. Claims 12-14
are not before us on appeal. The claims were withdrawn by the
examiner as being directed to nonelected subject matter. If
appellant disagreed with the examiner’s decision, a petition
to the Commissioner was the proper route of relief. In any
event,
disagreement with a restriction requirement is a petitionable,
not an appealable, matter.
In a related matter, appellant filed a notice
supplemental to the appeal briefs, March 4, 1999, indicating
that U. S. Patent No. 5,877,712 was issued to appellant. This
patent matured from a continuation-in-part application of the
instant application. Thus, to whatever extent claims 12-14
now form the basis of patented claims and to whatever extent
any claims in the instant application conflict with patented
claims granted to appellant, we leave these matters to be
handled by appellant and the examiner.
5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007