Appeal No. 1999-0653 Page 3 Application No. 08/226,564 Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schou. Claims 1, 2 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Murray.4 Reference is made to the main brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 11 and 13), the first request to strike ("REQUEST TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINER'S ANSWER" filed May 30, 1997, Paper No. 15) and the second request to strike ("APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE EXAMINER'S RESPONSE" filed October 23, Paper No.18) for the position of the appellant and to the final rejection, answer and supplemental answer (Paper Nos. 8, 12 and 14) for the position of the examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections. The appellant's remarks (main brief, page 11) with regard to the propriety of the examiner's restriction are directed to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we will not review this issue. Similarly, the appellant's request to strike the examiner's supplemental answer "as beyond the scope of procedure as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations relating to appeals before this Board" (first request to strike, page 2) is directed to a petitionable matter and not an appealable matter. We note, however, that, while the Code of Federal Regulations 4This rejection was entered as a new ground of rejection in the examiner's answer (page 6).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007