Appeal No. 2006-0181
Application No. 10/103,262
discussed the claimed limitation relating to having opposite ends
of the claimed liner attached to the claimed tubular body. See
the Answer in its entirety.
The appellants have submitted a Reply Brief which argues for
the first time, inter alia, that Croft does not teach or suggest
its inner bag (corresponding to the claimed liner) having opposite
ends that are attached to an outer container body (corresponding to
the claimed generally tubular body portion). See, e.g., the Reply
Brief, Page 2. In response to this Reply Brief, the examiner has
communicated to the appellants that “[t]he [R]eply [B]rief filed
July 26, 2005 has been entered and considered.” See the
Communication dated October 20, 2005, page 2. The examiner,
however, has not responded to any new arguments in the Reply Brief.
Id. Without the examiner’s analysis of the claimed limitation
discussed in the Reply Brief, we cannot determine whether or not
the underlying evidence supports the rejections of record.
Thus, upon return of this application, pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50 (2004), we order the examiner to submit a Supplemental
Answer addressing any new arguments in the Reply Brief,
especially the one relating to the claimed liner having opposite
ends attached to the claimed generally tubular body. The
appellants may exercise one of the two options listed in Rule
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007