Appeal No. 97-2968
Application 08/531,077
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); cf.
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.
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by the appellant in the brief and by the examiner in the answer.
As a consequence of this review, we will not sustain either of
the above-noted rejections.
Considering first the rejection of claims 1 and 13 based
on Roller alone, the answer states that:
What Roller does not show is the polyurethane coating
upon the belt. However, since there are other coating
compositions that are known in the art that would
perform equally as well, as also stated within the
specification of the instant application on page 7
lines 23-28, it is the position of the examiner that it
would have been a mere [matter of] design choice to
produce the belt having a polyurethane coating in order
to increase the resistance to heat transfer and damage
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007