Ex Parte DALLAS et al - Page 2





                Appeal No. 2002-0993                                                                                 Page 2                    
                Application No. 09/368,781                                                                                                     



                being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.1                                       



                         We AFFIRM-IN-PART.                                                                                                    



                                                             BACKGROUND                                                                        

                         The appellants' invention relates to hand tools with multi-faceted inserts for                                        

                cutting wire and other materials (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal                                     

                is set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                                         



                         The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                                       

                appealed claims are:                                                                                                           

                Root                                               477,066                          June 14, 1892                              
                Petersen                                           2,590,031                        Mar. 18, 1952                              



                         1 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 821 provides that (1) all claims that the                             
                examiner holds as not being directed to the elected subject matter are withdrawn from further                                  
                consideration by the examiner; (2) the examiner should clearly set forth in the Office action the reasons                      
                why the claims withdrawn from consideration are not readable on the elected invention; and (3) applicant                       
                may file a petition under 37 CFR § 1.144 for review of the restriction requirement.  In response to a                          
                species requirement (Paper No. 8, mailed February 8, 2001), the appellants elected Figure 1 and stated                         
                that claims 1 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 37 to 49 were generic (see Paper No. 9, filed March 12, 2001).                        
                However, in withdrawing claims 45 to 49 from consideration in the final rejection, the examiner did not                        
                clearly set forth the reasons why claims 45 to 49 were not readable on the elected species of Figure 1.  In                    
                any event, the withdrawal of claims 45 to 49 from consideration relates to a petitionable matter and not to                    
                an appealable matter.  See MPEP §§ 1002 and 1201.  Accordingly, we will not review the withdrawal from                         
                consideration issue raised by the appellants on pages 17-18 of the brief.   In addition, the examiner's                        
                objection to the drawings under 37 CFR § 1.83(a) raised in the final rejection also relates to a petitionable                  
                matter and not to an appealable matter.  Accordingly, we will not review the drawing issue raised by the                       
                appellant on page 5 of the brief.                                                                                              








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007