Appeal No. 95-3317
Application No. 07/937,522
In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA
1970). However, in this instance, we consider it to be
desirable to avoid the inefficiency of piecemeal appellate
review. See
Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984).
Therefore, we have made the determination as to the
nonobviousness of the claims on appeal in the interest of
judicial economy based on our conclusion that the combined
teachings of the prior art would not have rendered the process
for making the pipet tube recited in claims 26 and 27 prima
facie obvious for the reasons stated above.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 12 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed, and we
have made a new rejection of claims 26 and 27 pursuant to the
provisions of 37 CFR § 196(b).
Any request for reconsideration or modification of this
decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
based upon the same record must be filed within one month from
the date of the decision. 37 CFR § 1.197. Should appellant
elect to have further prosecution before the examiner in
response to the new rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) by way
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007