Appeal No. 94-0995
Application No. 07/662,722
remanded to the examiner with instructions to provide
appellants with an explanation why their Reply Brief did not
overcome the
new grounds of rejection. The examiner, however, did not file
another office action or communication between September 11,
1995, and May 18, 1998, even though appellants filed two
letters inquiring "as to the current status" of their
application.2
Finally, on May 18, 1998, the examiner issued a
Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 21), stating that:
Appellants are hereby informed that the Reply Brief
does not overcome the new Grounds of rejection. The
Examiner maintains his reasons for finally rejecting
the claims. Said reasons and rationale are as
indicated in the previous communications.
Again, 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.
We offer two comments on this unhappy state of affairs.
First, the examiner's steadfast refusal to reevaluate
2Status Inquiry filed May 30, 1997 (Paper No. 20);
Second Status Inquiry filed October 14, 1997 (Paper No. 20½).
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007