Appeal No. 2000-1833
Application 09/002,650
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Whitehead.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 13) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.1
DISCUSSION
I. Amendments subsequent to final rejection
The appellant presents for review the examiner’s refusal to
enter the amendment submitted subsequent to final rejection on
December 23, 1998 (Paper No. 5). It is well settled, however,
that the refusal of an examiner to enter an amendment after final
rejection is a matter of discretion reviewable by petition to the
Director rather than by appeal to this Board. In re Mindick, 371
F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). Hence, we shall
not further address this matter.
1 In the final rejection (Paper No. 4), claims 1 through 19
also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite. We consider this rejection to be withdrawn in
light of the lack of restatement thereof in the answer (see Ex
parte Emm, 118 USPQ 181 (Bd. App. 1958)) and the examiner’s
comments to this effect in the now “vacated” (see Paper No. 17)
communication mailed February 2, 2000 (Paper No. 15).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007