Appeal No. 2001-1909 Page 14
Application No. 09/016,786
court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action.” Ibid. at 277 F.3d
1346, 61 USPQ2d 1435. “Remand for these purposes is required.” Ibid. at
277 F.3d 1346, 61 USPQ2d 1436.“
The Board also serves as a board of review. The Board is not a de novo
examination tribunal (35 U.S.C. § 6(b)). Accordingly, in order for the Board to
make a meaningful review of the rejections on appeal, examiner must present a
full, clear and properly reasoned explanation in support of the final rejection. As
we explained supra, that has not been done here. In vacating the rejections and
remanding the application, we give the examiner a new opportunity to reassess
the patentability of the claims and to present new grounds of rejection with the
issues discussed above completely resolved.
We emphasize that we vacate examiner’s rejections. This means that the
instant rejection no longer exists and the issues set forth herein cannot be
satisfied by a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer. See Ex parte Zambrano,
58 USPQ2d 1312, 1313 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2000).
VACATED AND REMANDED
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HUBERT C. LORIN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007