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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte SERENGULAM V. GOVINDAN and GARY L. GRIDDITHS
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0758
Application No. 08/919,477
__________
HEARD: March 19, 2002
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SCHEINER and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
VACATUR AND REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
Our consideration of the record leads us to conclude that this case is not in
condition for a decision on appeal. While we are reluctant to remand this application to
the examiner at this late date, by statute, this board functions as a board of review.1
Here, we are faced with a record that is not susceptible to meaningful review.
Accordingly, we vacate 2 the examiner’s rejection and remand the application to the
examiner to consider the following issues and take action not inconsistent with the
views expressed in the following opinion.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 19 are representative of the subject matter at issue:
1 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b) states that “[t]he [board] shall . . . review adverse decisions of examiners upon
applications for patents . . .”
2 The term “vacate” means to set aside or void. Black’s Law Dictionary 1075 (abridged 6th ed.
1991). When the board vacates a rejection and remands the application to the examiner, that rejection no
longer exists, the appeal is ended and jurisdiction over the application on appeal is returned to the
examiner for further action not inconsistent with the views expressed in the opinion accompanying the
board’s decision. See also Ex parte Zambrano, 58 USPQ2d 1312 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 2001).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007