Appeal No. 1999-1499
Application No. 08/764,736
Dutkiewicz.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 23, mailed December 7, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 22, filed September 2, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 24, filed February 12, 1999) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
1A review of the application file reveals that this
rejection was first entered by the examiner in his answer
(Paper No. 23, mailed December 7, 1998). While 37 CFR §
1.193(a)(2) prohibits the entry of a new ground of rejection
in an examiner's answer, appellants have responded to this
rejection in a Reply Brief (Paper No. 24, filed February 12,
1999), and have waived their right to allege that the
examiner's answer contains an
impermissible new ground of rejection, as they have not timely
filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.181(a). See Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure § 1208.01.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007