Appeal No. 2004-1106 July 2004
Application 09/871,388 Page 11
IV. Miscellaneous
1. Upon return of this application, the examiner may wish to ascertain
whether the assignee of the application is correct and, if not, take such action as the
examiner deems appropriate.
2. On page 1 of the Reply, counsel asserts that the examination of the
application may not have been "impartial." Allegations, assertions and complaints
against patent examiners are to appear in "other papers." 37 CFR § 1.3 (2004).
Unfortunately, we note that this is not the first time counsel has made such assertions
in briefs in cases before this board. See, e.g., pages 1-2 of the REPLY BRIEF ON
APPEAL in Appeal No. 2003-1006, involving the same assignee. We believe it
appropriate in this appeal to warn counsel that we expect him to refrain in future
appeals from including complaints about examiners in appeal brief papers. Rather, a
complaint about an examiner may be made in a separate paper addressed to the
attention of the Director for Patents. Any further inappropriate activity by counsel in this
connection will be referred to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge for such action as
the chief deems appropriate.
V. Conclusion
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 14-21 and 23-33
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of original descriptive support is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007