Appeal 2007-1105
Application 09/731,912
1 while the first information was modified, so long as the first and second
2 information are not the same information.
3 With respect to claims 36, 40, and 44, Appellant argues that Chang
4 and Giljum do not disclose or suggest merging “a modified item template
5 back into the electronic document even ifthe content of one or more items
6 managed by the item template was altered while the item template item was
7 being modified” (Br. 8:14-16). We disagree. This is the same underlying
8 issue as with claims 35, 39, and 43, and we reach the same conclusion for
9 the same reasons.
10 Because our § 103 analysis based on the Chang and Giljum references
11 differs from that of the Examiner at key points, we designate our decision as
12 a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
13 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new grounds of rejection
14 pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
15 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
16 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
17 following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid
18 termination of proceedings (37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b) as to the rejected claims:
19 (1) Reopen Prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
20 claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
21 or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
22 event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner …
23
24 (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
25 [37 C.F.R.] § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record …
26
27
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013