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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 JUSTIN K. BRASK
and ROBERT B. TURKOT, JR.
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0286
Application 10/272,624
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and WALTZ, 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 rejected appealed claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hembree et al. and the admitted prior art at page 1 of appellants’
specification as applied to claim 11, further in view of Rabkin et al. in the final rejection mailed
December 23, 2004 (page 3), and maintained this ground of rejection in the answer (page 4).
Appellants state in the brief that the present appeal includes appealed claim 15 (page 5),
but do not include the above ground of rejection among the grounds for review on appeal (page
9) and do not argue the ground (page 10; reply brief, pages 1-2).
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007