Appeal No. 2001-0421
Application 08/926,835
“manners of providing the stated acid.” Id. See Ex parte
Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984) and MPEP § 2173.06
(8th ed. Aug. 2001).
The benefits of this last mentioned approach are
transparent. It avoids the extraordinary inefficiencies of
piecemeal examination and appellate review. This Board has been
properly critical when an examiner has engaged in a piecemeal
evaluation of issues during examination proceedings. Ionescu,
222 USPQ at 540. For the majority to now engage in this same
piecemeal consideration of issues during appeal proceedings is
more than hypocritical. It also significantly multiplies the
inefficiencies of piecemeal patentability determination. The
case before us is the perfect example of the devastating
consequences of piecemeal review when performed at an appellate
level as will be discussed more fully below.
THE MAJORITY’S ACTIONS MILITATE AGAINST THE MISSIONS AND
GOALS OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Of the many problems which currently face the Patent and
Trademark Office, few if any are more publicly discussed and
consequential than the ever growing problem of patent application
pendency. It has been a subject of increasing concern by Members
34
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007