Appeal No. 1997-3179
Application No. 08/244,286
renders the circuit inoperable for its intended purpose of
short-circuiting or suppressing high frequencies. In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Appellant's final argument (Brief, page 4) is that the
rejection of claims 16 and 19-22 under section 103 was
presented for the first time in the second Office Action was
based upon two references not relied upon in the previous
Office Action. Based on the above, the appellant believes
that the arguments and affidavit submitted in response to the
final rejection should be considered in this matter. It
appears that the appellant is questioning the propriety of the
examiner's final rejection. Questions regarding the propriety
or prematureness of the examiner's final rejection are
petitionable to the Commissioner under 37 CFR 1.181, rather
than appealable to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences under 37 CFR 1.191. Therefore, we do not have
jurisdiction over the propriety of an examiner's action being
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007