Appeal No. 96-3407
Application 08/325,549
examiner to reject claims. We exercise no general supervisory
power over the examining corps and decisions of primary
examiners to require corrections to the drawings are not
subject to our review. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002.02(c) and 1201 (6th ed., Rev. 3, Jul.
1997); compare In re Mindick,
371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967) and In re
Deters, 515 F.2d 1152, 1156, 185 USPQ 644, 648 (CCPA 1975).
Thus, the relief sought by the appellant would have properly
been presented by a petition to the Commissioner under 37 CFR
§ 1.181.
Considering first the rejection of 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 33
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as the invention, the answer states that:
A few examples are cited below; all claims
should be revised carefully to correct other similar
deficiencies.
For clarity and definiteness, it appears that --
of-- should be inserted after "exterior" (claims 33,
line 1)[.]
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007