Appeal No. 2002-0426 Page 7
Application No. 09/115,797
being unpatentable over Park in view of ‘392 and remand the application to the
examiner for further consideration.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Upon return of the application, we encourage the examiner to take a step back
and carefully consider each limitation of the claimed invention together with the
available prior art. If the examiner remains of the opinion that the claims on appeal are
unpatentable, the examiner should issue an appropriate Office Action that clearly
addresses each limitation of the claimed invention together with the facts and reasons
used in support of such a rejection.
We are not authorizing a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1). Any further communication from the
examiner that contains a rejection of the claims should provide appellants with a
full and fair opportunity to respond.
VACATED and REMANDED
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007