Appeal No. 2006-0317
Application 10/192,106
above, we remain of the opinion that the claimed invention is prima facie obvious over the
combined teachings of Liu, Agent and Pike as we have applied these references to claims 1
through 15, 21 and 22. Thus, the burden of going forward with respect to the new ground of
rejection remains with appellants. See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed and we have entered new a ground of rejection
pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 41.50(b) (2005)..
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b) (2005).
37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection shall not be considered final for
purposes of judicial review.”
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM
THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new
evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceedings will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the application be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board
upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 CFR 41.50(b)
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007