Ex Parte Ferree - Page 3




             be directly affected by or have a bearing on the decision in the pending appeal is                 
             incorrect.  Appellant’s brief (p. 1) contains a clear statement that there are no such             
             appeals or interferences.  Moreover, in section (4) on page 2 of the answer, the examiner          
             simply states that appellant’s statement of the status of amendments after final rejection         
             contained in the brief is correct, without confirming whether the amendment filed with             
             the brief has been entered, a question left open in appellant’s statement.  The examiner’s         
             initialed notation on the copy of the amendment entered into the electronic record August          
             10, 2005 indicates that the amendment has been entered, but the examiner should have               
             indicated such in section (4) of the answer.  The provision of such information is, after          
             all, the purpose of that section.  The examiner’s remarks in section (4) were of no                
             informative value.  Furthermore, the examiner’s answer does not restate the rejections,            
             instead simply referring to the final rejection.  As provided in Manual of Patent                  
             Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1207.02, “[a]n examiner’s answer should not refer,                    
             either directly or indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully restating the point        
             relied on in the answer.”  Moreover, the examiner’s answer does not even include the               
             examiner’s position and response to appellant’s arguments, once again referring to the             
             final rejection.  Consequently, the answer in this case provides absolutely no useful              
             information in explaining the status of the application, the rejections on appeal or the           
             examiner’s position in response to appellant’s arguments.                                          
                          The deficiencies in the answer noted above provide more than sufficient               
             justification for remanding the application to the examiner and requiring an answer in             
             compliance with 37 CFR § 41.39 and MPEP §§ 1207 through 1207.02.  Nevertheless, in                 
             the interest of administrative efficiency and fairness to appellant, we have entered a             
             decision on the merits of this appeal.                                                             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007