Appeal No. 1998-2066
Application No. 08/315,629
examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 4 and 8 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 135(b). The request seeks an order (1) remanding the
application to the examiner with instructions to reopen
prosecution as to the § 112, second paragraph, issues; and (2)
reversing the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 135(b).
The appellant seeks a remand with instruction to the
examiner to enter the amendment filed December 5, 1997, because
of a “clear factual error” (emphasis original) by the examiner.
See the request, p. 3. However, the appellant has failed to
identify any error on the part of the examiner which necessitates
a remand in this case.
The examiner’s indication in the advisory action mailed
November 7, 1997 (Paper No. 34), that the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims 8, 14 and 20 had been overcome by
the amendment filed with the brief on August 4, 1997, which
amendment was refused entry, was an error.2 However, this error
was certainly not the reason for the appellant’s failure to
present arguments in the brief concerning the § 112, second
2 Instead, the examiner should have indicated the status of claims 8, 14
and 20, if the proposed amendments to those particular claims were filed in a
separate paper. See MPEP §§ 714.13 and 1207.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007