The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte YOKO HAYASHI and
TAKAAKI ITOH
__________
Appeal No. 1997-4112
Application 08/062,210
__________
ORDER REMANDING TO EXAMINER
__________
A new ground of rejection was raised in the Examiner's Answer entered March 5,
1997 (Paper No. 26). A Reply Brief was filed May 5, 1997 (Paper No. 27) in response to
the new ground of rejection raised in the Examiner's Answer.
The examiner acknowledged the Reply Brief in a communication entered June 11,
1997 (Paper No. 29). The Manual of Pat. Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1208.04 (6th ed., rev. 3, July 1997) states:
If the reply brief was filed in response to a new ground of rejection in the
examiner’s answer, the examiner must issue a supplemental answer
indicating whether the new ground of rejection has been overcome, and, if it
has not, explaining why not.
There is no indication in the record setting forth the status of the new ground of rejection.
Accordingly, it is
1
Page: 1 2 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007