Appeal No. 97-4182
Application 08/429,150
it appears in the appendix to the substitute brief) we interpret
“a fabric canopy” to be -- the fabric canopy -- since this canopy
was previously set forth in line 3.
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 sustain the rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We will not,
however, sustain the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, or claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Initially we note that the substitute brief raises questions
as to the propriety of the examiner’s refusal to enter the
substitute specification filed on April 12, 1996 (Paper No. 3).
We must point out, however, that under 35 U.S.C. § 134 and 37 CFR
§ 1.191, appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
are taken from the decision of the primary examiner to reject
claims. We exercise no general supervisory power over the
examining corps and decisions of primary examiners to enter or
deny entry of papers is not subject to our review. See Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002.02(c) and 1201 (6th
ed., Rev. 3, Jul. 1997); In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007