Appeal No. 2001-2183
Application 08/621,215
our decision (Paper No. 39) entered February 11, 2003, as new
grounds of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). Appellant also
simultaneously filed an amendment (Paper No. 41), amending
independent claims 1 and 16, with the request for rehearing.
Appellant argues that the Board adopted an interpretation of
the "enclosure" in Mae in the affirmance of prior art rejections
based on Mae either alone or in combination with Veranth or
Sakai, which was radically different from the interpretation
relied upon by the examiner. It is argued that appellant has not
had a fair opportunity to respond to this new interpretation.
After due consideration, we agree that our interpretation of
Mae is so different from the interpretation advanced by the
examiner that it amounts to a new ground of rejection.
Accordingly, we grant appellant's request for rehearing and
designate the affirmed rejections based on Mae in our original
decision as new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b). Appellant's amendment (Paper No. 41) is a response
under § 1.196(b)(1), which amendment must be entered and
considered by the examiner to determine whether it overcomes the
new grounds of rejection. Pursuant to the procedure in
§ 1.196(b)(1), the application is remanded to the examiner for
consideration of the amendment.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007