Appeal 2007-0516
Application 10/438,506
1 the grounds that the amendment introduced new matter. Applicant responds
2 that the amendment did not include new matter and, in any event, the
3 amendment correcting the dependency should have been entered.
4 Applicant should have petitioned the Examiner’s refusal to enter the
5 amendment. 37 CFR § 113(a). The correctness of the Examiner’s refusal is
6 not before us. We have neither statutory nor delegated authority to address
7 the matter. Claims 3 and 4 remain dependent on cancelled Claim 2 and are
8 indefinite
9 Conclusion of Law
10 Claims 3 and 4 are indefinite and unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
11 ¶ 2.
12 Decision
13 The rejection of Claims 1, 5-16 and 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1,
14 is reversed.
15 The rejection of Claims 3, 4 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is
16 affirmed
17 The rejection of Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is
18 affirmed.
19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
20 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
21
22 AFFIRMED IN-PART
23
24
25
26 smt
- 18 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013