The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 41
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ROBERT BROWN,
ROBERT HORVITZ, and DANIEL R. ROSEN
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0624
Application No. 08/204,052
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before, WINTERS, ADAMS and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
VACATUR and REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
Having reviewed the record in this appeal, we have determined that the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is not based upon the correct
legal standards. Accordingly we vacate1 the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. It also appears that appellants’ Brief is defective in that it does
not address the rejection of claim 134 under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Therefore, we remand the application to the examiner to consider
the following issues and take appropriate action.
1 Lest there be any misunderstanding, the term “vacate” in this context means to set aside or to
void. When the Board vacates an examiner’s rejection, the rejection is set aside and no longer
exists.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007