Appeal No. 2001-0678
Application No. 08/877,711
In particular, appellants do not contend that our broad
interpretation of the instant claim language is erroneous.
Rather, appellants request that we permit amendments to be made
to the independent claims in order to clarify that the “operator”
and the “person” are not the same individual.
We decline the invitation to order the examiner to permit
this amendment at this time because while such an amendment would
appear to distinguish the instant claims over our specific
reasoning in sustaining the rejection of the claims, the
requested amendment might, conceivably, raise new issues. We
would prefer that any such amendment be presented to the examiner
for review, either through a request for amendment after decision
on appeal or through refiling the application. In this way, the
examiner can make a thorough review of such amended claims,
having our decision as a guide, and can make the determination as
to whether a new search of the prior art may be necessary and/or
whether there is some new rationale which might be applied
against such newly amended claims.
While we regret the delay attendant in such a review by the
examiner, especially in view of the already extended prosecution,
it is our view that this procedure would result in a much more
thorough consideration of any new issues presented by the newly
-2–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007