Appeal No. 1995-4273
Application No. 08/046,364
other. 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 through 6 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