Appeal No. 1999-0652 Page 3
Application No. 08/699,262
"this application be remanded with instructions that a
different examiner start the examination process anew." In
that we exercise no general supervisory power over the
examining corps, we decline to remand the application with
such instructions. The relief sought by appellant would
appear to have properly been presented by petition to the
Commissioner under 37 CFR § 1.181. Moreover, with regard to
the allegation that the examiner's answer contains a new
ground of rejection, even if the appellant is correct in this
regard, the appellant has not been prejudiced thereby, in view
of our treatment of the examiner's rejection set forth below.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the examiner asserts that Di Stefano discloses all of the
elements of the claimed invention except an L-shaped tension
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007