Ex parte DANIELS et al. - Page 6

              Appeal No. 94-2208                                                                                       
              Application 07/756,346                                                                                   

              rejection over Anderson was maintained.    The rejection over Anderson was also                          
              maintained in the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed September 20, 1993 (Paper                        
              No. 10).  However, in the Second Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed December 16,                      
              1993 (Paper No. 12) the examiner states at page 2 that “the rejection of claims 9-16 . . .               
              over Anderson . . . is withdrawn in view of the Appellant’s arguments.”  That Supplemental               
              Answer was in response to a Supplemental Reply Brief filed October 7, 1993 (Paper No.                    
              11) which does not mention Anderson by name.  Nor is it clear that the arguments                         
              presented therein were specific to Anderson.                                                             
                     Upon return of the application, the examiner should clarify the record and state                  
              precisely why the rejection over Anderson was withdrawn.  For example, did the examiner                  
              reconsider his decision not to enter the declaration and rely upon that submission in                    
              making this new decision?                                                                                

              declaration which says “Do not enter” followed by the date and initials of the examiner.                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007