Appeal No. 96-2905
Application No. 29/008,076
In our view, the PTO in the present case had ample
justification in expanding the panel. In that regard, in
section (2) of the brief, the appellant identifies Application
No. 07/909,057 as containing an appeal that will directly
affect or have a bearing on the Board's decision in the
pending appeal. The appeal in Application No. 07/909,057
involved the same issue as raised in this appeal. The
decision of the examiner to reject the single design claim in
Application No. 07/909,057 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was affirmed by a three
member panel in a decision mailed December 19, 1996 (prior to
the hearing held on October 15, 1997 in this appeal) and the
appellant's request for reconsideration under 37 CFR § 1.197
in Application No. 07/909,057 was denied by that panel in a
decision mailed September 29, 1998.
Standard Operating Procedure 1 (Revision 6, April 1,
1997) sets forth in section V, part A, reasons for expanding7
a panel. One reason listed is conflicting decisions by
different panels of the Board.
7Copy attached.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007