Appeal No. 94-0995
Application No. 07/662,722
PROCEDURE
The unusual procedural aspects of this case warrant
further discussion.
In the Reply Brief filed December 30, 1993 (Paper No.
16), appellants strenuously argued both of the new grounds of
rejection set forth in the Examiner's Answer. These are (1)
the rejection of claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Grape, Favre,
and Blizzard; and (2) the rejection of claims 1 through 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over "JP 53-130752A."
In a communication mailed April 22, 1994 (Paper No. 18),
the examiner stated that:
The reply brief filed 12/20/93 [sic] has been
entered and considered but no further response by
the examiner is deemed necessary. The application
has been forwarded to the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences for decision on the appeal.
Manifestly, this does not constitute a substantive response to
appellants' Reply Brief and does not explain why the arguments
set forth in the Reply Brief fail to overcome the new grounds
of rejection.
In the ensuing ORDER REMANDING TO EXAMINER mailed
September 11, 1995 (Paper No. 19), this application was
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007