The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte WILLIAM PATRICK APPS
__________
Appeal No. 2004-1356
Application 09/785,100
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KIMLIN, PAK, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
This case is not ripe for meaningful review and is,
therefore, remanded to the examiner for appropriate action
consistent with the views expressed below.
The examiner stated at page 4 of the Answer that:
Claims 1-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
[§] 102(e) as being anticipated by Apps et al.
(5,651,461)(Apps ‘461). This rejection is set forth in
prior Office action, Paper No. 15.
Claims 15-19, 21-26, 50 and 51 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. [§] 102(e) as being anticipated by Apps et
al. (5,704,482)(Apps ‘482). This rejection is set
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007