Appeal No. 1995-2789
Application No. 07/788,114
back and consider whether appellants’ written description of the claimed
invention is consistent with the principles set forth in Lilly.
We state that we are not authorizing a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1). Any further communication from the
examiner that contains a rejection of the claims should provide appellants with a
full and fair opportunity to respond. This application, by virtue of its “special”
status, requires an immediate action. MPEP § 708.01 (7th ed., rev. 1, February
2000). Accordingly, we hold the finality of our affirmance of the rejection of claims
1, 2, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Reinscheld in
abeyance until the proceedings on remand before the examiner are concluded. 37
C.F.R. § 1.196(e). It is important that the Board be informed promptly of any
action affecting the appeal in this case.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART and REMANDED-IN-PART
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
DONALD E. ADAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
21
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007