Appeal No. 2000-0450
Application No. 09/047,048
not regard as reasonably pertinent to appellants'. Thus,
since neither of the criteria set forth in Clay is satisfied,
Matthysse is nonanalogous art.
Rejection (3)
Appellants do not argue the merits of this rejection in
their brief. Rather, they assert on page 5 of the brief that
the amendment after final rejection (filed June 28, 1999)
overcomes the rejection, and request that this Board enter the
amendment in spite of the examiner's refusal to do so.
The refusal of an examiner to enter an amendment after
final rejection is a matter which this Board has no
jurisdiction to consider, but rather should be raised by a
petition to the Commissioner under 37 CFR § 1.181. In re
Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967); see
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1002.02(c), item 3(b)
(July 1998). Accordingly, appellants' argument cannot be
considered by us.
No other arguments having been presented, rejection (3)
will be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 10, 12, 13, 15
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007