The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte HIDEKIYO TAKAOKA
And KIYOTAKA MAEGAWA
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0215
Application 10/087,742
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand the application to the examiner for consideration and explanation of issues
raised by the record. 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1) (2005); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1211 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).
The record shows that the examiner entered and considered the reply brief filed August 2,
2005, and responded to issues raised therein in the communication mailed October 17, 2005.
37 CFR § 41.43(a)(1) (September 2004) provides in pertinent part that “the primary
examiner . . . may furnish a supplemental examiner’s answer responding to any new issue raised
in the reply brief.” See also MPEP § 1207.05 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005). This MPEP
section provides as a matter of practice that “[e]very supplemental examiner’s answer must be
approved by a Technology Center (TC) Director or designee.” See also MPEP § 1208 (8th ed.,
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007