Appeal No. 1995-3148
Application No. 08/011,130
Thus it appears that the continued rejection of the claims in the present application
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, first paragraph, is inconsistent with the determination
that claims 1 and 7 of ‘222 are patentable. Accordingly, we remand the application to the
jurisdiction of the Examining Corps to allow the examiner to consider the ‘222 patent and
determine its effect, if any, on the issues raised in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and
112, first paragraph.
This application, by virtue of its “special” status, requires an immediate action.
MPEP § 708.01(d). It is important that the Board be informed promptly of any action
affecting the appeal in this case.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
)
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HUBERT C. LORIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007