Appeal No. 96-2631
Application No. 08/177,616
filed December 14, 1995) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Initially we note that on pages 7-8 of the brief the
appellant seeks our review of the decision by the examiner (Paper
No. 9) refusing entry of the amendment (Paper No. 8) after final
filed May 25, 1995. However, the refusal by the examiner to
enter appellant's amendment after final rejection relates to a
petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter. See In re
Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356-57, 179 USPQ 46, 51 (CCPA 1973)
and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA
1967). See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1002(c), item 4(b) and § 1201. Thus, the relief sought by the
appellant would have been properly presented by a petition to the
Commissioner under 37 CFR §§ 1.127 and 1.181 instead of by appeal
to this Board. Accordingly, we will not further consider this
issue.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007