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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GARY E. GEORGESON and
LARRY E. DOLAN
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0278
Application 09/069,002
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, GARRIS, and MOORE Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claim 10. Claim
11, although pending, is withdrawn from consideration.1
1 Claim 11 was subject to a restriction requirement. Although traversed, the restriction requirement was
made final and the record reveals no petition was made for reconsideration. While the Appellants have
argued that claim 11 should be retained in the application, the Appellants failed to pursue the correct
remedy. We do not review this discretionary type of decision. See, e.g. See In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892,
894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967) (if there is an abuse of discretion, the matter may be remedied by
petition to the Commissioner of Patents; In re Pavlecka, 319 F.2d 180, 188, 138 USPQ 118, 125 (CCPA
1963) (procedural matter is outside board's jurisdiction).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007