Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
examiner to reject claims. We exercise no general supervisory
power over the examining corps, and decisions of primary
examiners withdrawing claims from consideration and objecting
to the content of drawings are not subject to our review. See
MPEP §§ 1002.02 and 1201; In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395,
1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971) (restriction requirement
is a procedural matter not reviewable by appeal);
compare In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568
(CCPA 1967) (matters within the examiner’s discretion, such as
refusal to enter amendment after final rejection, are
reviewable by petition to the Commissioner (now, Director)).
Thus, the relief sought by appellant would have properly been
presented by a petition to the Director under 37 CFR § 1.181,
and we shall not review or further discuss the examiner’s
actions in these matters.
Appellant’s arguments on pages 16-18 of the brief
regarding the Warman patent, of record, are also noted. These
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007