Appeal No. 96-0655
Application No. 08/052,507
stand withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner as
being directed to a nonelected invention (Answer, page 1).2
According to appellant, the invention is directed to a
composite, full length window covering constructed from short
remnant lengths of panels of cellular fabric (Brief, page 2).
Claim 9 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
9. A method of making a composite window covering
from panels of cellular fabric, said fabric being constructed
of tubular cells arranged in side by side relationship,
comprising the steps of:
providing a first panel of cellular fabric of desired width;
trimming a cell of said first panel of cellular fabric to
leave a first attachment strip surface extending
centrally of the thickness of said first panel of material
and the full length of said cell;
2Appellant states that claims 9-16 stand rejected but that
claims 9-16 and 22 are on appeal (Brief, page 2). Appellant
argues that the restriction requirement applied to claim 22 is
improper (Brief, page 4) and this issue is properly before the
Board since it involves substantive claim construction (Reply
Brief, Paper No. 11, page 2). However, as noted by the
Examiner on page 2 of the Answer, the propriety of a
restriction requirement is petitionable, not appealable. See
35 U.S.C.
§ 134; 37 CFR §§ 1.144, 1.181 and 1.191(a); and the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure, §§ 1002.02(c) and 1201, 7th ed.,
July 1998. Claim 22 has not been finally or twice rejected
and therefore this merits panel has no jurisdiction in regard
to this claim. Accordingly, the claims on appeal are claims 9
through 16.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007