Appeal No. 2000-0519
Application 08/800,627
Hershey et al when taken in view of Griffiths et al and the
patent to Hulyalkar et al ('289)" (Paper No. 24, p. 3).
Appellants filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief (Paper No. 25)
(pages referred to as "SEA__"), as they were entitled to do
because the claims had been twice rejected. The Examiner
entered an Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 26) (pages referred
to as "EA__") rejecting the claims under § 103 over "the
articles to Hershey et al or Griffiths et al when taken in
view of the patent to Hulyalkar et al ('289)" (EA4).
Appellants filed a Reply Brief (Paper No. 28) (pages
referred to as "RBr__"). Examiners are not permitted to
file a supplemental examiner's answer unless the application
is remanded by the Board for such purpose. 37 CFR
§ 1.193(b)(1) (1999).
As noted by Appellants in their Reply Brief, the
Examiner's statement of the rejection in the Examiner's
Answer is confusing because it is different from the
rejection in the Action of March 15, 1999, Paper No. 24
(RBr1-2). We agree with Appellants' conclusion that the
rejection of Paper No. 24 appears to be the more accurate
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007