Ex Parte Kettunen - Page 3




             Appeal No. 2003-0420                                                            Παγε 3               
             Application No. 09/533,904                                                                           


                    If the examiner determines that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 251 remains                   
             appropriate, the examiner is authorized to prepare a supplemental examiner's answer                  
             specifically addressing the § 251 rejection.  See 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1).  In the event that           
             the examiner furnishes a supplemental answer, the appellant may file a reply brief in                
             accordance with 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1).                                                                
                    If the examiner determines that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 251 is no longer              
             appropriate, the examiner should withdraw the rejection in an appropriate Office action.             
                                                 CONCLUSION                                                       
                    This application, by virtue of its "special" status, requires immediate action, see           
             MPEP § 708.01.                                                                                       
                    If after action by the examiner in response to this remand there still remains                
             decision(s) of the examiner being appealed, the application should be promptly returned              
             to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.                                                    




                              BRUCE H. STONER, JR. )                                                              
                              Chief Administrative Patent Judge )                                                 
                                                                         )                                        
                                                                         )                                        
                                                                         )                                        
                                                                         ) BOARD OF PATENT                        
                              GARY V. HARKCOM )          APPEALS                                                  
                              Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge )               AND                          
                                                                         )  INTERFERENCES                         
                                                                         )                                        
                                                                         )                                        






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007