Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
than previously considered and that the procedure followed
by the Examiner is correct. The letter states that claims
reciting features not shown in figure 4 "are not readable on
the elected species" (Paper No. 22), p. 1), although it is
not clear whether this is merely a summary of the Examiner's
position or is the Group Director's opinion. The letter
concludes that "the actions by the examiner are considered
proper" (Paper No. 22, p. 2).
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal (Paper No. 23) on
April 18, 1996.
First issue - claims 2-8, 17-23, 31-44, 99-112, 121-1343
The Board's jurisdiction is limited to those matters
involving the rejection of claims. In particular, the Board
does not have jurisdiction to review an examiner's
requirement for restriction. See In re Hengehold,
440 F.2d 1395, 1404, 169 USPQ 473, 480 (CCPA 1971).
However, according to the procedure set forth in MPEP § 821,
We organize the decision according to Appellant's3
ordinal numbering of the issues. As previously noted, the
third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and tenth issues are moot because
the Examiner has withdrawn the rejections as to these claims
made in Paper No. 20.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007