Appeal No. 97-4205
Application 08/562,853
of their respective positions may be found on pages 4-10 of the
brief, pages 1-3 of the reply brief and pages 8-12 of the answer.
OPINION
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 reply brief and by the examiner
in the answer. This review leads us to conclude that the prior
art relied on by the examiner fails to establish the obviousness
of the appealed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Accordingly, we will not sustain any of the above-noted
rejections.
Initially, we note that the brief contains arguments
concerning the propriety of the examiner’s requirement for
correction of the drawings. 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 require
corrections to the drawings are not subject to our review. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002.02© and 1201
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007