Appeal 2007-0109
Application 10/741,895
After considering the record before us, this appeal is not ready for
meaningful review. Accordingly, we remand this application to the
Examiner to consider the following issues, and to take appropriate action.
In accordance with the discussion at pages 2 and 3 of the Answer, the
Examiner has indicated withdrawal of certain grounds of rejection, even
though they have not been specified. Presumably, as noted by Appellants at
page 8 of the Rely Brief, this applies to the rejections set forth in the Final
Rejection. The Answer then proceeds to set forth three new grounds of
rejection in-part relying upon newly applied prior art.
First, in contrast to the Final Rejection, the present rejections set forth
as new grounds of rejection in the Answer do not include any rejection of
claims 3 and 14 on appeal. This is significant since claim 14 is considered
or otherwise construed as an independent claim by its recitation of an
electronic device according to the method of independent claim 1 on appeal.
Thus, since independent claim 1 has been newly rejected on existing prior
art, we would expect that independent claim 14 should be rejected in the
same manner. This omission and that with respect to claim 3 appear to be
inadvertent. In any event, Appellants requested allowance of these claims at
page 8 of the Reply Brief. Since the Examiner’s subsequent communication
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013