Appeal No. 2001-0421
Application 08/926,835
The majority’s actions are unique in that they have clearly
undesirable consequences for both the appellants and the examiner
(as well as the Examining Corps in general). Yet, a particularly
frustrating aspect of these actions is that so few avenues exist
by which the appellants and the examiner may seek review of them
in a timely and efficient manner. One such avenue is by way of
requests from both the appellants and the examiner for rehearing
by an expanded panel of the Board. Though unusual, an expanded
panel may be requested by appellants via, for example, a petition
to invoke the supervisory authority of the Director (a.k.a.
Commissioner) and/or to address a question not specifically
provided for in the PTO regulations. See 37 CFR §§ 1.181 and
1.182 (2002). An examiner’s request for rehearing of a Board
decision must be approved by the Technology Center Director and
must also be forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Assistant
Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy for approval before
mailing. See, for example, MPEP § 1214.04.
In summary, by their unwarranted actions taken in this
appeal, the majority panel members have shirked their
responsibility under 35 U.S.C. § 6 and have abused their
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). This circumstance can only be
condemned. The majority panel members should fulfill their
37
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007