Appeal No. 2002-0780 Page 11
Application No. 09/128,340
For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that the examiner did not
consider the references relied upon for what they fairly teach a person of ordinary
skill in the art. Accordingly, we vacate the pending rejection and remand the
application to the examiner for further consideration. We urge the examiner to
take this opportunity to reconsider the prosecution history together with the
available prior art. If after a renewed consideration of the facts and evidence, the
examiner believes that a prior art rejection should be made, the examiner should
issue an appropriate Office action setting forth such a rejection, using the proper
legal standards and clearly explaining the facts relied upon 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 which contains a rejection of the claims should provide
appellants with a full and fair opportunity to respond.
VACATED and REMANDED
)
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007