Appeal No. 2001-2584 Page 12
Application No. 08/462,817
grounds thereof, as supported by the agency record, and explain its application
of the law to the found facts.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1432-3 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “The agency tribunal must make findings of
relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may
conduct meaningful review of the agency action.” Id. at 277 F.3d 1346, 61
USPQ2d 1435. “Remand for these purposes is required.” Id. at 277 F.3d 1346,
61 USPQ2d 1436.”
Since the Board also serves as a board of review, not a de novo
examination tribunal (35 U.S.C. § 6(b)), in order for the Board to make a
meaningful review of the rejections on appeal, the examiner likewise must
present a full and reasoned explanation in support of the final rejection. As we
explain supra, that has not been done on this record. Accordingly, we vacate the
rejection and remand the application to give the examiner a new opportunity to
more thoroughly present the grounds of rejection. If the opportunity is taken, the
examiner should consider amending the grounds of rejection to support the
examiner’s finding (Answer, page 8), that “[t]he use of CV-7 cells to obtain
expression of human protein in a non-human background to permit the
characterization of that protein was old and well known in the art at the time that
the instant invention was made.”
OTHER ISSUES
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and
557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing
provided by statute;”
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007