Appeal No. 2005-2743 Page 9
Application No. 09/847,388
Accordingly, prior to taking any further action on the merits we encourage
the examiner to take a step back and reconsider the claimed invention in light of
the relevant prior art.
III. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 706.02(j):
As presented for our review, the rejection of record encompassed a
plurality of claims but did not state with any specificity why any individual claim is
unpatentable. In the event of further prosecution, if the examiner maintains a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we suggest the examiner review MPEP
§ 706.02(j) for a model of how to explain a rejection under this section of the
statute. Adherence to this model will of necessity require that the examiner
consider the patentability of the claims in an individual manner and set forth the
facts and reasons in support of why individual claims are unpatentable.
REVERSED
)
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Demetra J. Mills ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
DEA/jlb
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007